The Gingrich Tease

At Americablog, John Aravosis talks about his relationship to the campaigns:

"Edwards launched a new Web site, SupportTheTroopsEndTheWar.com. Edwards is proposing that this Memorial Day, we take back patriotism. I like it. And his video appeal is well done too. I'm on a conference call with a number of Edwards supporters at the moment, and we'll be doing a smaller conference call with a few bloggers and Edwards in a few minutes.

"As an aside, Edwards is the only major presidential candidate - meaning, versus Hillary and Obama - who has consistently reached out to our blog. I've defended all three candidates, from time to time, on TV and online. For example, on CNN's Paula Zahn show earlier this week, I defended Hillary against the attacks of a Republican operative who loathed her and a Democrat who felt Hillary wasn't doing enough. Didn't hear a peep from her campaign afterwards. Nor did I hear a peep the previous time I defended Mrs. Clinton on CNN against some rather vicious and demeaning attacks by two GOP operatives. The Edwards campaign, however, routinely thanks us when we help them . . .

"It's not about ego and the need to be thanked. It's about not being treated like somehow they're doing us a favor by letting us defend them.

Every cycle, it seems, we hear about how this time, more young people are going to vote. The Boston Globe says it may finally be happening:

"After a steady decline in youth voting since the close of the Vietnam War, young voter participation increased from 36 percent in 2000 to 47 percent in 2004, representing a huge jump. Analysts also project that the final statistics from 2006 will show it to be a record year for youth voting in a midterm congressional election.

"The Internet has accelerated the trend, giving young people a cheap and efficient tool to organize rallies, recruit volunteers, and exchange information about candidates. With passions high over the war, national security, and global warming, young people today are shaping up as a political power bloc that could exceed the influence of antiwar protesters in the late 1960s and early 1970s, pollsters and analysts predict."

Michelle Malkin claims victory in a battle against Universal Music Group and YouTube.

The Wall Street Journal has the latest on the takeover attempt it faces: "Rupert Murdoch sent a 1,200-word letter to Bancroft family members over the weekend in an effort to convince them to accept his $5 billion offer for Dow Jones & Co. Inc.

"In the letter, which was sent Saturday and distributed to family members on Monday morning, Mr. Murdoch offered to add a Bancroft family member to News Corp.'s 15-member board if the deal goes through. He also vowed to establish an independent editorial board to ensure the editorial integrity of The Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones's other editorial operations."

He wrote: "I don't apologize for the fact that I've always had strong opinions and strong ideas about newspapers but I have always respected the independence and integrity of the news organizations with which I am associated."

I don't think that could be said of the New York Post.

How much do looks matter in a presidential race? More than we might think, according to American Prospect's Garance Franke-Ruta:

"HOT OR NOT? A reliable G.O.P. source sends in this e-mail from 'a colleague . . . in Iowa' who 'just went to see Mitt Romney speak. This is from her, and a piece of campaign literature she picked up at the event:

"His promotional flyer says, 'In this media-driven age, Romney begins with a decisive advantage. First, he has sensational good looks. People magazine named him one of the 50 most beautiful people in America. Standing 6 feet, 2 inches tall, Romney has jet-black hair, graying naturally at the temples. Women -- who will play a critical role in this coming election -- have a word for him: hot.'"

But the story turned out to be hot air:

"UPDATE: O.K., this turns out to be less interesting than it first appeared. The material on the flyer handed out by the Romney campaign was not written by the Romney campaign. It's from this story[on the conservative site NewsMax]. Still, it's the vision of Romney that they're flacking."

How Paris Hilton stays in the news, despite her lack of career or any talent beyond partying and drawing media attention, is one of life's enduring mysteries. LAT columnist Tim Rutten tries to unravel it:

"Not very long ago, it was possible to contemplate spending a relatively long and reasonably productive career in American journalism without ever having to type the words 'Paris Hilton.'

"That was then. This, sadly, is now.

"Watching the cyclonic attention that swirled around Hilton's court appearance this week, it was hard not to notice how closely our celebrity-besotted press now resembles Churchill's famous description of the prewar Germans as a people 'either at your throat or at your feet.' Having benefited from the tabloid media's attentions while it was in that latter posture, perhaps this rather odd young woman will now have to suffer through its assault. That, in fact, is the traditional arc of celebrity for celebrity's sake. First the tabloid media's various incarnations make you famous for nothing more than being famous. Then it turns in a fury of righteous indignation and devours you for, well, being famous."

Editors are now mesmerized by online traffic, and "things like this week's feeding frenzy, which doubtless produced the predictable number of hits. If you inserted Paris Hilton's name into your grocery list and posted it on the web, you'd get tens of thousands of hits. They don't mean anything, but that hasn't stopped desperate news editors from grabbing onto what they mistake for useful information the way a drowning man or woman clutches at anything that might keep them afloat."

Oh, and Rutten casts his withering gaze close to home:

"The Los Angeles Times, for example, currently is advertising for a reporter to fill a new 'celebrity justice' beat."