Posts from October 2003

New Hampshire bound

New Hampshire bound
: In no time flat, Josh Marshall raised more than enough money to send him to New Hampshire to cover the primary exclusive for his weblog readers. The audience has spoken!

‘Suiciders’

‘Suiciders’
: I think George Bush just coined a new word for the suicide bombers (I call them human bombs) terrorizing the Middle East. In his press conference, he called them “suiciders.” I thought it was a slip and then he called them that again. “Suiciders.”

“Murderers” is still more accurate.

Star bloggers

Star bloggers
: Kaye Trammel is doing her dissertation on celebrity bloggers (that is, celebrities who blog… though I would have thought that bloggers who become celebrities would be interesting, too.). So send her suggestions.

After the attacks

After the attacks
: Zeyad is pissed and for damned good reason. His view after the human-bomb attacks on Iraqi and outside civilians is that it’s not about Saddam anymore:

This Saddamophobia has to stop. Suicide attacks are carried out by you-know-who. This is Bin Ladens gift to his fellow Iraqi Muslims. Didn’t he say it himself a while ago?

I demand that all Iraqi diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia and Syria cease immediately. I demand that we expel all foreign Arabs from Iraq until further notice. A little firmness is necessary. We can’t just sit and wait for the next attacks.

Iraq should resign from the Arab League which is just a symposium for dictators. Who the hell needs it anymore? They didn’t even officially show sympathy for Iraqis after the attacks. They should be considered the enemy unless they act promptly to secure their borders and ensure that no Mujahedeen sneak through to Iraq daily. They are the ones to blame. We all know they have an interest in keeping up the attacks and the chaos. They are aware of the fact that they are next on the list after Saddam. They will pursue every possible effort to make the Iraqi example fail.

When attacks are carried out in other Arab countries they consider it terrorism, but in Iraq it is resistance against the occupying Americans.

What if the public hates public affairs?

What if the public hates public affairs?
: I dread Sunday mornings because TV and radio are filled with alleged “public affairs” programming, which is really just dutiful crap meant to appease bureaucrats and pressure groups. There are racial and ethnic segments that are essentially insulting to their apparent audiences (if the story is worth doing, then do it in prime time; don’t ghettoize it here). There are political round-tables that make me want to crawl under the nearest table and fall asleep (and you wonder why people don’t vote). And there are interviews with nut jobs pushing some nut view (just to stop them from bugging the newsroom, no doubt). I can’t stand any of it. Public affairs programming has absolutely no value to me as a member of said public.

But there are forever pushes for more of it: programming by quota.

The Washington Times (of all publications) reports on a study by the “Alliance for Better Campaigns” [beware “alliances” for they are the folks who fill Sunday morning with snoozes] arguing there’s too little public-affairs programming:

Broadcasters have relegated local public-affairs programming to the very bottom of the heap