Three Cheers for DeLay

"'While I was unaware of this stock in my portfolio, its mere presence may be viewed as a conflict,' Blackwell wrote in a letter that accompanies his annual financial disclosure statement."

Accidentally? Unaware?

Not much silver lining for the GOP in Katharine Harris's imploding Senate campaign. Dick Polman tallies the damage:

"In a short period of time, she has been on the receiving end of resignations from: Her chief political strategist. Her director of field operations. Her campaign manager. Her campaign press secretary. Her campaign treasurer. Her pollster. Her media consultant. Her national financial director. And the traveling aide who dispensed bumper stickers.

"She was never the GOP's first choice for the race - because of her polarizing reputation (she will galvanize Democrats to show up en masses in November) and because, frankly, a lot of Republican insiders simply don't like her very much - and that was even before she got hit with questions about why she took $32,000 in illegal campaign contributions from disgraced defense contractor Mitchell Wade, who recently pleaded guilty to bribing a California congressman. At this point, Harris apparently has only one option left, the option often taken by politicians who are locked in a downward spiral. And, of course, she is taking it already: She's blaming the media, which she says has 'relentlessly and personally' attacked her."

Apparently, everything's our fault.

One of the nice things about CBS's Public Eye blog is that network executives are asked to explain themselves. The latest was triggered by this Richard Sandomir column in the NYT:

"In the midst of Ed Bradley's worshipful two-part profile of Tiger Woods on '60 Minutes' last Sunday, I wondered if it was an infomercial or if Woods had paid a fee for these adoring 25 minutes. With nothing new to report -- and not a single tough question in his arsenal -- Bradley chose to join Camp Tiger." . . .

Jeff Fager, the program's executive producer, responded:

" 'Should everybody who goes on '60 Minutes' get slammed? Is that how you see our job? Or is it OK to profile a superstar athlete even if we didn't uncover any dirt? Tiger Woods is someone who doesn't give interviews, so it's newsworthy to hear him talk.'

"I asked Fager about a comment Mike Wallace reportedly made before a group of ESPN personnel regarding the Woods piece. Wallace noted that Woods is very private, and went on to say he thought 'probably some concessions were made' for '60 Minutes' to land the interview. 'You didn't see a heck of a lot of his wife, last night,' said Wallace. 'The concession was, look, 'I'm going to be more candid with you, Ed Bradley, than I've ever been in public before. Why? Because I'm going to get an opportunity to tell about my [charity] foundation.' I think that's fine.'

"Fager said the program was indeed unable to talk to Woods' wife, but that did not mean the piece was not worth doing. 'We wanted to talk to his wife,' said Fager. 'And he didn't want his wife to be interviewed, or she didn't want to be interviewed. But do we say 'forget it' because she wants to remain more private? Why? I think it would have been better for the story, we wish we had been able to meet her and talk to her, but do you say, 'OK we're not going to do the story?'''

And in the no-good-deed-goes-unpunished department, Slate's Jack Shafer tells the NYT:

"I'm canceling because the redesign of your Web site, which you unveiled yesterday, bests the print edition by such a margin I've decided to pocket the annual $621.40 I currently spend on home delivery.

"Oh, that's not to say that I find the Web version superior in every regard. For one thing, if I give up the print Times I'll have to find other morning bathroom reading. I'll miss dividing the paper into its respective sections, hording the best sections and distributing the leavings to my family. I'll also long for the big J&R ads that run on Tuesday, Thursday, and Sunday. But seeing as I already read huge chunks of your newspaper online, sometimes with the print version in my lap, I might as well go all the way. Online better fits the way I live and work. Your spiffy new design is the tipping point I've been waiting for, and I'm convinced it will ease my transition to a paperless newspaper."

I don't think that's quite the reaction the Times was looking for.