Undercover Journalism

"Only 9% of poll respondents say there would be a 'good chance' they'd vote for him. Some 23% say there's "some chance." Now, that's not to say $150 million could change things, but . . . "

More people know who Bloomberg is than Fred Thompson? Doesn't that suggest the media may be overestimating the prospects for a huge Thompson boom? Or do many folks only know him by the name of Arthur Branch?

This NYT piece suggesting that John Edwards's antipoverty group may have been merely a vehicle for his 2008 ambitions--shocking, I know--draws a sharp retort from the Huffington Post's Susan Madrak:

"The same paper that was oh, so reluctant to question the motives of the gang of crooks and liars that have been desecrating the White House and Congress for far too many years now is going after John Edwards for being smart enough to keep himself politically viable.

"As anyone who's ever paid a lick of attention knows, John Edwards cares about poverty. He grew up poor, and you do tend to think about it, even when it doesn't apply anymore.

"So when he and Kerry lost the presidential election, he had to figure out what he was going to do next - and how. He decided to turn himself into an anti-poverty brand. He formed a 501(c)4, and began traveling around the world, talking about poverty.

"Nothing he did was illegal. (If there's one thing John Edwards has never been accused of, even by the New York Times, it's being a bad lawyer.) It's important to make that distinction with the Times, since they have such a very long track record of implying things about Democrats by nature of the resources they devote to a story. After all, you have to justify all that time and money somehow!"

But Sister Toldjah, who's clearly not a fan, is agitated:

"Just more proof that John Edwards is a dishonest, self-serving creep who is more interested in feathering his own nest while trying make others feel guilt about not 'doing more for the poor.' . . .

"Edwards new campaign motto should be: Ask not what you can do for the poor, but what the poor can do for you."

I don't see where it's all that different than politicians forming these Committee to Pontificate on America's Future groups.

Ombudspeople don't usually get into op-ed pages, but Clark Hoyt questions whether the Times should have run columns by a) a Hamas spokesman, and b) a former vegan who says it's a dangerous lifestyle and invokes the death of a baby who was fed such a diet (and neglecting to mention a major study upholding the safety of such diets):

"Unlike the Middle East, The Times has not presented another view, or anything, on veganism on its op-ed pages for 16 years. There has been scant news coverage in the past five years . . .

"Op-ed pages are for debate, but if you get only one side, that's not debate. And that's not healthy."

And in case you missed it over the weekend, Larry King will interview Paris Hilton on Wednesday now that ABC and NBC have dropped out. For the full hour.