Made of Straw

"Now, as we all know, sleaze and corruption are not unique to either side of the political spectrum. But Armstrong, Kos & their netroot cronies have made a big deal out of clean government (and they should). So this kind of allegation speaks even more deeply to their ethics, as it . . . would for anyone in that position.

"Moreover, this behavior, if true, besmirches blogging in general, harming all of us who take this enterprise seriously as a criticism of the activities of mainstream media."

In the wake of the Minneapolis bridge collapse, Buzz Machine's Jeff Jarvis has a suggestion:

"Calling all New York and New Jersey news organizations: Want to enlist your audiences in a networked reporting project that will have a huge impact on government and make a difference in all their lives -- a project you couldn't do without them?

"Get your audience to report on the failures of the infrastructure around them.

"Put up a Google map (with Platial on top) and town and neighborhood wikis and ask them to pinpoint every failure of infrastructure -- or feared failure -- they see: streets that flood every time it rains, bridges that look just too damned rusty, potholes, pipes that burst, streets that don't get plowed, streetlights that don't work, signs that are missing . . . Ask them for dates and other specifics and for pictures and video. Urge them to blog their stories of frustration and bureaucracy. Use your promotional power and influence to mobilize your public.

"Then do what you do best: add journalism. Go verify what they say and tell the story of that street that closes every time it rains, of the people whose lives lose hours as a result, of the government bureaucrats who should be fixing it of the money spent on other things instead."

You gotta admit, not a bad idea.

Speaking of Google, the Post I.T. blog reports that Google News is "introducing a feature that allows comments on news stories - from the people who are mentioned in those stories. News stories and blog entries on washingtonpost.com, as well as many other blogs and sources of news, have long offered a chance for readers to chime in.

"In a test that begins this week, Google will allow comments only from the people in the story and will post those comments along side entries on Google News. As a journalist, I welcome this feedback. Often, our sources have been less than happy with stories we've written about them. And I can't tell you how many times I've heard from sources who were disappointed that some detail that came up during an interview didn't make the story."

I wonder if lots of people will take advantage of the offer.

Think all the criticism is getting to Rupert?

"Rupert Murdoch has complained that his victorious three-month battle to buy the Wall Street Journal involved fending off criticism bearing a degree of vitriol usually reserved for 'genocidal tyrants.' "

A Wall Street Journal contributor is disturbed that ordinary folks think the economy is faring worse than economic experts say. So Brian Wesbury blames the media:

"It could be that the format behind most business journalism skews perceptions and creates pessimism. To be very clear, I am not arguing that business news is purposefully biased. But what seems clear is that in the name of producing an entertaining product, and in an attempt to provide contrasting views, the true consensus of experts is rarely reported.

"A randomly selected pairing of economists from The Wall Street Journal forecasting panel would pit two rather optimistic forecasters against each other in debate. But having two economists debate about whether GDP will grow 2.1% this year or 2.4% is downright boring. As a result, the producers of business news spice things up. They arrange for debates between a bullish economist and a bearish economist. And since they can't have Messrs. Roubini and Shilling on every hour of every day, they find equity short-sellers who make a living when things turn down, or political economists who are trying to score points.

"While this is entertaining, and may bring in eyeballs, which sell commercials, this idea of 'fair and balanced' debates leaves an impression that the experts are split 50/50, when in reality it's more like 80/20, or 90/10."

At Andrew Sullivan's place, Bruce (his last name must be buried in there somewhere) is sympathetic:

"This is a pet peeve of my own and a reason why I avoid these sorts of programs. One thing that annoyed me particularly was that the producers would often put me up against some total nobody who had no clue about what he was talking about. In one case--I kid you not--I debated the minimum wage with an honest-to-God, fresh-off-the-streets homeless person. I refused to ever appear on that channel ever again and it eventually went off the air. (Incidentally, it's also annoying that bookers almost never tell you who you will debating ahead of time.)

"I don't mind debating those whose views are diametrically opposed to mine. In fact, I enjoy a good debate and have any number of friends on the left whom I would be happy to debate any time on any issue. Even though we may come to different conclusions, I know that we can probably agree on the facts and will argue along predictable lines. But too many producers find such sober discussions to be boring, so they try to liven things up by setting up debates with people who make up their own facts, argue illogically, make no effort to be consistent, and, too often, use up most of the [allotted] air time. Thus you end up wasting your own time refuting the other guy's errors rather than making your own points."

Now that's breaking news.

Britney in a fender-bender--what a shock. Will someone please take this woman's car keys away?