By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 30, 2005; 9:09 AM

He has denounced shoddy journalism, defended whipped-cream-covered strippers on television, discussed the pope on MSNBC, called in to Howard Stern, exchanged erudite letters with the editor of the New York Times, and championed the idea that any citizen can be "a Wolf Blitzer in sheep's clothing."

In the process, he says, he has "rebranded" himself as Blog Boy.

Jeff Jarvis, a former critic for People and TV Guide and a founding editor of Entertainment Weekly, has moved from writing for millions to blogging for thousands, slinging opinions on subjects ranging from the war on terror to car stereos. "God knows how many bits and bytes I've wasted on my blathering," he says.

Jarvis, 50, churns out all manner of commentary on his Web site BuzzMachine.com, operated with help from his 13-year-old son Jake, who has his own blog. MSNBC executives like his punditry so much that they periodically use shaky Webcam video of him from the den of his New Jersey home. "I'm broadcasting to the world with a $99 camera," he says.

Last week, the white-bearded Jarvis quit his job as online czar for Advance Publications. He will be working for the New York Times Co. as editor of the services guide About.com, whose $410 million acquisition Jarvis had questioned. (He says he'll still critique the paper's journalism but not its business decisions.) Jarvis will also be working with a news start-up operation (details still secret) and consulting for City University of New York's new journalism grad school.

Not everyone is a Jarvis fan. He got into a spat with a Daily Kos contributor who called him a conservative. (Jarvis, a Democrat, wrote: "If I'd passed your test, would I have gotten a Liberal License? A Liberal T-Shirt, perhaps? A Liberal Membership Card?") He called a professor who challenged the motives of two Iraqi bloggers "pond scum."

Jarvis made waves last fall when he discovered, through a Freedom of Information Act request, that all but three of the 159 complaints to the Federal Communications Commission over Fox's "Married by America" were duplicates of form letters from the Parents Television Council. Jarvis, who mocked the FCC's $1.2 million fine over the show's strippers and other sexual suggestiveness, shared his findings on Stern's radio show. Jarvis called this "censorship by the tyranny of the few," adding: "The FCC should be ashamed of itself."

L. Brent Bozell, the council's president, says that Jarvis "got lots of national press for something that wasn't true. I'm not saying he was lying, but he should correct it." Bozell says 4,000 of the council's members filed complaints, and the reason they sounded identical is that the FCC requires the attachment of a show transcript, which his group provided. Jarvis says he reported what the commission turned over and that Bozell's figures don't undercut his point about "manufactured outcries."

In February, when Jarvis posted an open letter to Times Editor Bill Keller about the value of blogs, it was a "trick," he says -- "kvetching and moaning" on his part -- and he was "shocked and delighted" when Keller replied in what turned into a lengthy exchange. Keller's response to Jarvis's suggestion that he debate bloggers more frequently: "Easy for you to say, since you seem to live without sleep." Keller wound up pronouncing the online debate "educational and satisfying and a lot more fun than I'd have expected."

A one-time staffer for the Detroit Free Press, Chicago Tribune and San Francisco Examiner, Jarvis says that he became a populist as a TV critic in the 1980s when he defended the shows that people wanted to watch, regardless of what elite opinion said. Initially, he admits, he "didn't get" the appeal of blogging. That changed on Sept. 11, 2001, when Jarvis was at the World Trade Center and, "like a stupid, idiotic journalist, I stayed there to report." He launched the blog that became Buzz Machine and "it soon took over all available life," to the point that "it became a social addiction. To abandon it is to abandon your friends." (Jarvis had 135,000 friends, or unique readers, in March, according to his figures, which include those who sign up for automatic feeds from his site.)

He describes himself these days as "an obnoxious evangelist for the idea that what people have to say has value." In his most grandiloquent formulation, he sees blogs as the rise of a new "citizens' media," in which ordinary folks can not only sound off but report, put up video and otherwise gather information without the imprimatur of big media companies.

"Journalism is impersonal, blogs are personal," he says. "Journalism is dispassionate, blogs are passionate." And if that passion leads some practitioners to ignore facts, float rumors or make mean-spirited attacks, he says readers "have the good sense to be able to judge that." Jarvis can get carried away, though, suggesting that local papers don't need their own film critics, just syndicated ones, and would do better to let average Joes pen the reviews.

On television, says MSNBC producer Sharon Newman, Jarvis is a great guest because he's "trying to understand the din out there. He's been able to tap into that voice."

A few weeks ago, Jarvis ran into Michael Powell at an Aspen Institute gathering and told the former FCC chairman he had frequently assailed him online. Jarvis said his proudest moment was when he used his Treo smartphone to blog news of the commission's fine against Stern as he was about to begin choir practice. Powell, he says, "looked at me like I was nuts."

Jarvis, who seems to attend every conference on new media held in the continental United States, differs from many bloggers in that he loves the old media, despite their flaws. He argues that traditional outlets can thrive by embracing this growing army of commentators, which is why he continues to advise big corporations. Not that he's defensive about it: He says he "sold out to The Man" 30 years ago.

As for his own never-ending torrent of online opinion, Jarvis says: "People can choose to read or reject me or call me a bozo."

Just Between Us . . .

For all the hand-wringing about anonymous sources in the wake of the Newsweek/Koran fiasco, a new study says their use is actually on the decline.

Front-page stories in the New York Times and Washington Post cited unnamed sources 30 percent of the time in the first year of Ronald Reagan's presidency, compared to 20 percent in the first year of George W. Bush. The Center for Media and Public Affairs says the proportion of such stories in four regional papers dropped from 24 to 14 percent from 1981 to 2001, and on the network evening newscasts from 16 to 14 percent.

"You don't get credit for naming your sources, just like it's not news when planes don't crash, so when one does it always seems like air travel is unsafe," says center president Robert Lichter.

Post's New Partner

The Washington Post is turning to one of its rivals in an effort to beef up its financial coverage.

Starting Wednesday, The Post will run a couple of stories each day from Wall Street Journal foreign correspondents on an International Business page in a redesigned section. "We both remain fierce competitors on many stories," Post Assistant Managing Editor Jill Dutt told her staff in a memo, "but on the overseas business front, our one foreign business correspondent, Peter Goodman, couldn't possibly compete with the dozens of Journal reporters covering businesses and markets around the globe."

The Journal, which plans to launch a Saturday edition in September, began carrying selected Post articles in its European and Asian editions in 2003. That provided a needed overseas outlet for The Post, which had been stung by the New York Times's decision to force a buyout of its share of the Paris-based International Herald Tribune.

Perversion Watch

The chief spokesman for the Transportation Security Administration was none too pleased with the front-page USA Today story about the development of new X-ray machines that would show "a clear picture of what's under passengers' clothes -- whether weapons or just bare skin."

Mark Hatfield strongly disagrees with the story's assertion that the airport machines will "paint a revealing picture of a person's nude body." So he fired off an e-mail to reporter Thomas Frank with the subject line: "You should work for Larry Flynt."

Dispensing with dry, bureaucratic language, Hatfield wrote: "What a sensational piece of [excrement]." He said the machines had been delayed, "but you choose to mislead your readers with 'bare skin' and 'peer into undergarments.' Shame on you and your perverted editor."

Says Hatfield: "My colorful complaint to him was meant to be constructive." While partly "tongue-in-cheek," he says he was making the point that the agency is dealing with privacy concerns by demanding changes to the machines.

That Paris Ad

If we might digress from politics for a moment, there is lots of chatter about that Paris Hilton burger ad for Carl Jr.'s, which TV types keep denouncing while replaying it again and again. Here is the esteemed Tunku Varadarajan of OpinionJournal:

"Had it not been for Bill O'Reilly -- once a breath of bracing air on television, now just a gust of halitosis -- I would not have seen the ad in which a thong-suited Paris Hilton, overdressed by her own recent standards, touts a burger so brazen that it looks like the patties have had silicone implants.

"Paris writhes frontally for the camera, hoses herself down as she washes a car (burger in hand, naturally), and then assumes a horizontal position as she takes a climactic bite, rump arched skyward. Mr. O'Reilly's plaint was that the ad, put out by a fast-food chain called Carl's Jr., was inappropriate for a family restaurant: 'Mr. and Mrs. America, and four little kids screaming for a little burger and fries. Now, they're going to see this, and they're going to go, What?' Yet how does he manifest his disapproval? By airing the eye-catching spot on his show not once, but twice--all the while tut-tutting and huffing like some suburban Savonarola."

Brian Montopoli of Columbia Journalism Review decries the "grossly excessive, blatantly overblown and sniggeringly childish" coverage of Paris as peddler:

"What exactly, you might wonder, is the story? Well, the Parents Television Council . . . has condemned the Hilton burger ad as 'soft-core porn' and 'inappropriate for television.' The organization 'plans to mobilize its more than 1 million members to protest and is considering petitioning the Federal Communications Commission for a ruling on whether the advertisements are indecent,' according to the Los Angeles Times. Now, the PTC, which was founded by our friend Brent Bozell, complains about an awful lot -- according to a December 2004 Mediaweek report, they were responsible for 99.9 percent of all indecency complaints received by the FCC through October of that year. . . .

"People like looking at Paris. And though the commercial follows a straightforward plot -- Paris has to wash a Bentley, and due to all the activity, she gets hungry and eats a burger -- she goes at it as though she's auditioning for a role on a late-night Cinemax movie. Which explains why the Carl's Jr. website crashed after the ad came out from all the traffic. And why news organizations are using the 'story' as an excuse to post stills from the ad and get a little of that traffic themselves."

You mean -- they're hypocrites ?

"As any fool has long known -- the British tabloid the Sun, with its Page 3 Girl, springs to mind -- sex sells. But we thought we'd just take a moment to lament the fact that our more legitimate media is so damned disingenuous. At least the Sun has the courage of its convictions -- it says its going to give you a Page 3 girl, and there she is, lifting up her shirt. . . . CNN and the Times, by contrast, want to give their readers, who presumably think of themselves as more highbrow, the same thing -- but without the attendant guilt that comes with their ogling."

The ad is pretty offensive if you have kids -- but not so offensive that a dozen TV shows haven't done segments on it.

Captain's Quarters is calling for a financial boycott of the GOP leadership:

"I have made clear from the beginning that I would continue to support Republican candidates that demonstrate a backbone and a commitment to the principles they so loudly espoused in the fall of 2004. People like me worked our hearts out to give the Republicans a solid majority in the Senate so that they could lead, especially on judicial nominations. Instead, we have leadership that has proven itself unable or unwilling to rise to the task they themselves set in the election.

"That's what the Not One Dime campaign targets. When we donate to the NRSC, that money gets distributed by established party leadership in the Senate to campaigns around the country, as the leadership sees fit. That power essentially ties incumbents to the current leadership, because in order to ensure that they get enough funds to have a shot at winning, they need to be seen as supportive of the people holding the purse strings. If the NRSC hasn't got any money of its own, the leadership loses that influence, and the candidates have to put their loyalty elsewhere.

"For the second time in a week, the Democrats have exposed Bill Frist as a well-meaning, ethical, but hopelessly outclassed Majority Leader."

USA Today has some interesting Hillary numbers (keep in mind it's ridiculously early for this to have much meaning):

"For the first time, a majority of Americans say they are likely to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president in 2008, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday.

"The survey shows that the New York senator and former first lady has broadened her support nationwide over the past two years, though she still provokes powerful feelings from those who oppose her.

"Clinton commands as much strong support -- but more strong opposition -- as George W. Bush did in a Newsweek poll in November 1998, two years before the 2000 election. She is in slightly stronger position than then-vice president Al Gore, the eventual 2000 Democratic nominee, was in 1998."

Andrew Sullivan wants to know more about the military's Koran probe:

"The toilet incident allegation has been withdrawn, after the detainee was 'reinterviewed.' The detainee was never asked specifically about the toilet allegation in his 're-interview.' Reassured? Still, it's progress to have the military concede what others still refuse to see and what the miitary was denying outright only a week ago. Remember also that at Gitmo, none of the interrogators was an amateur. They cannot pull the Lynndie England defense. Someone somewhere thought this was a good idea. Who? Did anyone explicitly authorize this? Or was it a function of unclear guidelines? In which case, who was responsible for unclear guidelines? Did the memos allowing for far greater leniency in interrogatory abuse have anything to do with this? We currently have many more questions than answers."

Kevin Drum says the issue is not Newsweek but . . . people like me:

"The American media certainly has its share of problems these days, but the state of American media criticism is little short of buffoonish. How is it possible that our press critics have spent two weeks clucking nervously over the fact that Newsweek's source made a mistake about which report he saw the Koran allegations in, thus providing the White House with exactly the cover they needed to avoid responsibility for the fact that it's their disastrous policies that are responsible for what's happening in Afghanistan? Who needs Paris Hilton to distract attention from reality when America's media critics will do it for free?"

Might I remind people that Newsweek retracted the story, apologized for the story and issued new restrictions on the use of unnamed sources?

Power Line's John Hinderaker isn't buying this Washington Post article that challenges Rummy's denial that he had given an order to shoot down those two airheads in the Cessna that buzzed D.C.'s no-fly zone:

"The two officials whom the Post relied on for its original story had no first-hand knowledge of Rumsfeld giving any such orders; they were 'told' that he had done so. Yet the Post's first story clearly implied that the 'two senior federal officials' were relating facts, not hearsay or surmise.

"So the Post's lead sentence -- someone apparently thought it important that Rumsfeld himself had issued the order -- reported anonymous hearsay as fact. What is important here is not so much the error itself; I assume that someone other than Rumsfeld did indeed issue some kind of order authorizing the plane to be shot down under specified circumstances. But it does illustrate, I think, one of the problems with the mainstream media's addiction to anonymous sources. When we don't know who the source is, we can't evaluate whether the source is in a position to know the facts that he claims to be true."

Finally, it's gotten about 0.1 percent of the attention of Arianna Huffington's new venture, but Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo is starting a group blog:

"There will be several blogs hosted at TPMCafe. The main group blog is one I've mentioned several times before. So let me share with you who the contributors to the main group blog are going to be. They are: Steve Clemons, David Gelber, Todd Gitlin, Reed Hundt, Ed Kilgore, Karen Kornbluh, Annie Lamott, Michael Lind, Josh Marshall, Judith Shulevitz, Mark Schmitt and Marshall Wittmann. A few others will be joining the group shortly. But that's our roster for our kick-off next Tuesday."

Well, no Diane Keaton, Julia Louis-Dreyfus or Erica Jong. But some interesting thinkers.