Back in September, I wrote about how writer Amy Alkon was — in her view, and mine — sexually assaulted by a TSA agent and then threatened with a defamation suit for writing about the incident.

Amy wrote an opinion piece about the experience, and since September, has been trying to get it published in the American media. Now, it's a big deal for me to get published, but Amy's been published in all sorts of mainstream, widely-read publications, including as a syndicated columnist. It's no big deal for her. Yet, no matter how far and wide she shopped the column, she found that the American media — including outlets that had published her before — were not interested in her description of a TSA agent groping Amy's privates and then threatening to sue when she complained.

Amy has finally found a media outlet willing to run her story.

It's Pravda. Yes, that Pravda. You can read Amy's post about it here, and read the Pravda English language version here.

Now, choosing which stories to publish is an art, not a science. Perhaps the American media outlets didn't care for Amy's writing — even though they had published her many times before. Perhaps the story didn't grab them, perhaps they had no room that month, perhaps they were emphasizing other crucial stories like the tragic Kardashian divorce.

Perhaps.

But, as I argued a year ago, though the media has reported on passenger accounts of TSA abuse, when it comes to editorial comment, the media has generally acted as the TSA's dutiful fluffers, compliantly parroting the line that good citizens must endure this for their safety.

Call me a cynic. But I think that might have had something to do with it.

Now, did Pravda publish Amy's story because it still delights in illuminating America's shame? Perhaps. But Russians also know bureaucratic thuggery when they see it.

You can find all of our TSA coverage here.

Americans affected by reading yesterday's Associated Press story "Texas Wildfire Victims Wondering Where Perry Is" woke up today to bewilderment, as the story had been replaced with this squib, "BC-US–Perry-Wildfires-Story". The original story, which Americans all over the nation are reprinting in its entirety for the sake of posterity, read as follows:

Texas wildfire victims wondering where Perry is

BASTROP, Texas (AP) — Residents affected by a devastating Central Texas wildfire are growing impatient with state officials and questioning why Gov. Rick Perry hasn't spent more time there.

Some residents yelled at Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst when he visited the command center in Bastrop County Friday, asking where Perry is and why they haven't had any housing help.

Wildfires have destroyed nearly 1,400 homes about 25 miles from Austin.

Perry, running for the Republican nomination for president, interrupted his campaign and returned to Texas for two days before heading to California for a debate Wednesday. He is now fundraising in California.

Perry's office said "everything that needs to be done to respond to these fires is being done."

Dewhurst said the White House hasn't yet replied to a request for federal aid.

Yet this morning, the story read simply:

STORY REMOVED: BC-US–Perry-Wildfires story

BASTROP, Texas — The Associated Press has withdrawn its story about Texas residents questioning why Gov. Rick Perry has not spent more time in areas affected by wildfires. The single person who asked about Perry's involvement was not an area resident.

Also missing was the name of the Associated Press reporter who wrote the story.  People all over the nation wondered what happened to the name.  Was it deliberately removed? Or was it edited? Was the story written by Scott Lindlaw, or Tom Hayes?, mused puzzled Americans from coast to coast.

Update: In fact it appears that only one person, rather than "puzzled Americans American from coast to coast" is wondering who wrote the withdrawn Associated Press story. Also, we have learned that only one person woke up today in bewilderment that the story was missing.  That person later clarified that he woke up bewildered because a local woodpecker was making noise against a tree in the yard, rather than for reasons having to do with the missing Associated Press story.

However, Popehat stands by this article, because the one person cited above is in fact an American.  Moreover, we feel that his behavior is indicative of a growing trend among Americans who worry about the accuracy of stories from the Associated Press.

Finally, Popehat now acknowledges that much of the reporting for this story was originally performed by the Wall Street Journal's James Taranto.

. . . ask yourself — could it all be utter bullshit?

Sheena now says British tabloid The Sun—which published the first Botox Mom story—orchestrated the whole thing. "I was provided with the story, instructions, and a script to follow for a recorded interview." She made $200. "The truth is I have never given my daughter Botox, nor allowed her to get any type of waxing, nor is she a beauty pageant contestant."

There are plenty of genuinely outrageous things going on in America, and in the world, that we ought to be outraged about and that the media ought to focus on. But those things tend to be uncomfortable, controversial, complicated, and difficult and/or expensive to cover. Why spend $50,000 on a long-term investigation of government corruption when you can spend $10,000 to get some jackass to tell the world she Botoxed her eight-year-old, and get ten times the eyeballs that the corruption story would have gotten?

How can you tell the bullshit from the genuinely outrageous? Well, when the media makes shit up, blows it out of proportion, or plucks it from deserved obscurity to crowd out serious stories, it tends to follow certain familiar themes:

1. That pretty white girl is missing!
2. Holy shit! This product will incinerate/decapitate your kid!
3. He is not married to her, and yet they had intercourse!
4. How could that celebrity have said that?
5. This small-chinned child is in peril!
6. HOW CAN YOU DO THAT TO A LITTLE BABY DUCK, YOU HEARTLESS BASTARD!
7. Eeeeeew, gross.
8. Ha ha! He totally had his schlong out!

By contrast, if the media reports on one of the following stories, it is generally not made up, because the media doesn't particularly give a shit, and thinks you don't either:

1. Lies by politicians that require more than two sentences to explain;
2. Corruption of a sort that cannot be understood by a five-year-old;
3. Culturally deified groups (cops, firefighters, etc.) misbehaving;
4. People accused of crimes being mistreated;
5. Political leaders making stupid decisions that cannot be described at a sitcom level (e.g. "Ha! He totally choked on a pretzel!")
6. Generally, reality failing to function as TV suggests it should.

Kids I've flown from one end of this galaxy to the other. I've seen a lot of strange stuff.

But I've never seen anything like this morning's New York Times:

Where a lead story includes references to, well, you'll have to read it yourself but it does include the phrase "Two turds and a golfball," surely a first for The Times.

Yes, it's April Fool's Day, and yes, once again, the New York Times proves that layers of fact-checkers and editors cannot save a dying newspaper industry from its own gullibility. From the need to find the story that fits the narrative, no matter how ludicrous it may be.

During the cultural revolution, figures to be humiliated were made to wear a giant dunce cap of shame. Today, they are given a position at the New York Times.

Never mind that  the man who is the subject of the story does not exist.

Never mind that the story includes giveaways like "over 9,000" and "does not forgive, does not forget."

The story was too good to check. So the Times, which once ran all the news that was fit to print, ran with all the news that fit the Times' preconceptions.  And the result is another humiliation for the Gray Lady of American journalism.  On April Fool's Day, no less.

Unfortunately, today being, as everyone outside the 42nd Street cocoon knows, April Fool's Day and all, the Times has hidden its shame behind a paywall.  I won't link directly to the Times because I'm sure most of our readers haven't paid the toll. But Dr. Westby Fisher has more. Much more.

And screenshots on the way.

Let me tell you a story of a former client I'll call Jimmy Joe-Bob.

Jimmy Joe-Bob was a local politician of some ill repute. The DA and the cops had been gunning for him for years. Finally they came up with what they thought was a solid case against him.

DA investigators went to his house to serve the arrest warrant at 6 a.m. one Friday. (The DA and the cops favor Friday arrests because they can generally drag their heels and avoid bringing the defendant before a judge all day, thus ensuring that he stays in jail all weekend before getting bailed out). First, they tipped off a reporter from the Major Local Rag. But reporters don't like getting up that early. So when the reporter from the Major Local Rag showed up, cameraman in tow, the cops had already cuffed Jimmy Joe-Bob and put him in the back of their cruiser. The reporter protested. Where's my fucking perp-walk!

So the DA investigators pulled Jimmy Joe-Bob out of the back of their car and walked him back into his house. Then they turned around and perp-walked him back to the car so that the Major Local Rag's cameraman could get shots of him being led out of the house and put in the car. Major Local Rag ran those pics.

Major Local Rag did not report that the cops had staged a second perp walk for them. Major Local Rag would never do that. Major Local Rag doesn't report when cops break rules — including rules related to people's rights — to the benefit of Major Local Rag. That's typical. Rags have what they regard as a code of ethics — that even if someone broke the law to leak information to a Rag, then turned around and blamed someone else for that leak in a blatant attempt to obstruct justice, their help to the Rag is sacrosanct. Because otherwise the Rag wouldn't get leaks. Cops wouldn't stage perp walks so they could get good pictures.

I bring this up to explain why I am utterly unsurprised to learn that the media willingly participated in the appalling media circus described in Patrick's post earlier today. We expect journalists to be vigilant watchdogs over law enforcement abuses. They'll make a gesture now and then — when it makes a good headline.

But they'll dash past ten stories of police abuse to take advantage of one cop's leak about a politician, or athlete, or bimbo heiress in some petty scandal.

The most interesting reactions (assuming you find abnormal psychology interesting) to news of CBS correspondent Lara Logan's sexual assault at the hands of Egyptian hooligans have come from those one might think would wish her well, her fellow journalists.

One would be wrong.  Consider Nir Rosen, a correspondent for Time, Rolling Stone, and The Arlantic Monthly, who committed professional suicide last night on Twitter, "joking" (as he later explained when he realized that he'd gone too far) that Logan exaggerated or even staged her rape to get ratings:

lara logan had to outdo anderson [Cooper]. where was her buddy mccrystal?

it sort of depends who it happens to. sometimes we have to find the humor in small things.

jesus christ. at a moment when she is going to become a martyr and glorified we should remember her role as a major war monger.

Rosen woke up yesterday morning a respected authority on the Middle East.  He woke up this morning with an appointment to see the administration at New York University, where he "offered" his "resignation" as a fellow in the Law and Security Studies program. He is now making amends with a curious apology:

A part of me was bothered by how celebrities, especially white ones, get so much attention, and before I realized it was a sexual assault I was sort of anticipating a return to the old theme about unleashed brown natives attacking a white woman. Another part of me was bothered by the knowledge that Arab victims would never get attention, that this would detract from everything else that was happening, and that most victims of sexual assault, whether in Egypt or the US will never get attention. These are not points a man has a right to make though, and nobody should try to take advantage of somebody else’s tragedy to make points anyway.

In other words, if a woman made Rosen's points that rape is a way of life for the victims of "unleashed brown natives," or whatever the fuck it is Rosen's trying to say as he keeps frantically digging himself deeper into a hole, that would be perfectly acceptable.

Nir Rosen, have I got the woman for you!  Meet our old friend Debbie Schlussel:

As I’ve noted before, it bothers me not a lick when mainstream media reporters who keep telling us Muslims and Islam are peaceful get a taste of just how “peaceful” Muslims and Islam really are. In fact, it kinda warms my heart.  Still, it’s also a great reminder of just how “civilized” these “people” (or, as I like to call them in Arabic, “Bahai’im” [Animals]) are: …

So sad, too bad, Lara. No one told her to go there. She knew the risks. And she should have known what Islam is all about. Now she knows. Or so we’d hope. But in the case of the media vis-a-vis Islam, that’s a hope that’s generally unanswered.

This never happened to her or any other mainstream media reporter when Mubarak was allowed to treat his country of savages in the only way they can be controlled.

Now that’s all gone. How fitting that Lara Logan was “liberated” by Muslims in Liberation Square while she was gushing over the other part of the “liberation.”

Hope you’re enjoying the revolution, Lara! Alhamdilllullah [praise allah].

This isn't the first time that Schlussel has played the "she was asking for it" card in rejoicing at the misfortunes of fellow, always female, journalists.  It seems Schlussel has a thing for damsels in distress.

But unlike Nir Rosen, Debbie sees no need to offer half-hearted apologies.

The reaction of the left to this article is funny in its predictability.Sooo damn predictable. Of course I don’t support “sexual assault” or violence against Lara Logan, and I said that nowhere here. RIF–Reading Is Fundamental. Your premature articulation is a problem. I did say that it warms my heart when reporters who openly deny that Islam is violent and constantly promote it get the same kinds of threats of violence I get every day from Muslims. Because now they know how it feels. They aren’t so dismissive of the threats when those threats are directed at them, instead of at us little people.

While the entire post is worth reading (again if you're into abnormal psychology) the "I'm one of the little people, who suffers violence every day" line is a new one to me.  To read her biography, you wouldn't know that Debbie Schlussel's a little person. She's one of the most important journalists in America.

Schlussel’s unique expertise on radical Islam/Islamic terrorism and a host of other issues make her a popular speaker and television and radio news talk show guest, both nationally & internationally. (Her online fan club is the Internet's second largest for a political personality–behind only Ann Coulter.) She is a University of Michigan graduate and holds both Law and MBA degrees from the University of Wisconsin.

As both an attorney and a frequent New York Post and Jerusalem Post columnist, Schlussel’s writings/commentary on radical Islam and her legal actions against radical Islamic parties have gotten a great deal of attention — and results. Columns she’s written in the New York Post and appearances she's made on “O’Reilly Factor” …

Schlussel, who speaks Hebrew, Arabic, French, and Russian, works closely with several Federal law enforcement agencies, consulting on fighting the domestic War on Terrorism, and has provided them with much useful information. She has gone undercover, infiltrating many Muslim organizations in the Detroit area (the heart of Islamic America), exposing their radical nature and support for terrorism.

I hear she's also a millionaire, who owns a mansion and a yacht.

Nir Rosen wimped out, "offering" his "resignation" which was regretfully accepted by NYU.  Debbie will never back down to the liberals.  If you agree with Debbie Schlussel that Lara Logan deserved to be raped, won't you show your support by visiting the website of the New York Post?  Won't you watch the O'Reilly Factor tonight?

Won't you note several sponsors or advertisers, and won't you write them letters or emails praising their support of Fox News contributor and New York Post correspondent Debbie Schlussel?

Won't you strike a blow for free speech?

Can you believe that CNN would write this?

Jewish groups and many scholars argue that starting in 1939, Germans committed genocide, when more than a million Polish Jews were massacred in the waning days of the Third Reich.

Modern-day National Socialists officially deny that a genocide took place, arguing instead that hundreds of thousands of Polish Jews and Christian Germans died in intercommunal violence around the bloody battlefields of World War II.

I can't believe it either.

The loudest commentary on Wikileaks seems divided between shouts for blood and shouts for joy.

On the one hand you've got the anti-Wikileaks side, ranging from the armchair-aggressive to the scary to the buffoonish. On the other side, you've got full-throated defenses of Wikileaks and Julian Assange. The dialogue is driven by simple, larger-than-life themes. On the one hand, you've got the image of America-hating traitors seeking to weaken and discredit us; on the other hand you've got the image of courageous patriots exposing government wrongdoing. Government secrecy has been accepted uncritically as either necessary to national interests or as a hallmark of tyranny; leaking and publishing leaks has been accepted uncritically as either a heroic blow against tyranny or as a grave risk to national security.

It ain't necessarily so. Throughout the modern era, the deliberate leaking of government secrets has been a familiar tool of the state and of warring factions both in and out of government. It's gullible to think that it will be any different just because someone stuck a "wiki-" prefix in front of it. In other words, if we accept uncritically that leaks really represent something that the government didn't want us to know, or that leakers (or their publishers) have the common good at heart, we're being foolish. Even when the government is calling for the scalps of the leakers and the people who distribute the leaks, and even when fans are declaring that the leaks are helping us determine the truth and resist government tyranny, informed citizens should be asking tough questions. Who benefits from this leak? Who gets hurt? Did the government really want to keep this secret, or did it want this information to come out for its own purposes, in a deniable way? Did some faction within government release this to hurt some other faction? Am I assigning undue trustworthiness to the information because it was leaked instead of openly asserted by the government? Is the information complete, or could there be unleaked information that undermines its credibility or changes its meaning? If the people publishing this leak found out that they had been duped somehow by the leaker, would they tell us, or would they hide it to protect their reputation or the entire concept of publishing leaks? Do I — should I — believe that the people reviewing and selectively publishing the leaked information are doing so honestly, or are they driven by an agenda? Is someone trying to manipulate me with this leak, and to what end?

There are excellent reasons to exercise such skepticism.

I wrote about Troy Ellerman three years ago. Ellerman was not himself a government official, but gained access to government documents — specifically, grand jury transcripts of testimony of various well-known figures in the BALCO steroid investigation — in the course of representing targets of that investigation. Ellerman leaked grand jury transcripts to the San Francisco Chronicle, then turned around and accused the government of the leak, and even filed a motion to dismiss the case against his client on the basis of that alleged government leak. The San Francisco Chronicle dutifully reported upon Ellerman's motion just as if it did not know that it was premised on fraud — just as if they did not know that they were the willing instrument of obstruction of justice executed to advance the interests of Ellerman's clients. Ellerman — the leaker — had an agenda of helping his clients and himself. The San Francisco Chronicle had an agenda of protecting the identity of its informants and leakers so that it can get more information and leaks — even if that agenda required it to publish information it knew to be false or misleading, and even if that meant it had to allow itself to be used.

Ellerman's conduct is unusual only because it represents the defense engaging in selective leaks to influence the outcome of a criminal proceeding. The government does it all the time. Just as Wen Ho Lee. Or Richard Jewell. Or Brandon Mayfield. Anyone who has ever defended a high-profile case — even a case that is only high-profile in a small media market — will tell you that the government leaks information all the time, and that the leaks range from police and prosecutors trying to influence the coverage and taint the jury pool to individual government employees looking for money or a sense of importance. The press reports it without thinking about the government's agenda because the press agenda is to get attention and the money and prestige that goes with it. Nobody in that process cares much about the impact on the justice system.

But agenda-driven leaking — and agenda-driven reporting of leaking — isn't limited to criminal justice issues. They're an old story. Recent examples are numerous. Some assert the Plame Affair was a prime example of Bush administration leaking information to discredit a rival. The Obama administration has almost certainly strategically leaked information about Iran to improve its political and geopolitical fortunes. Our government leaks information to pressure our putative allies, and to intimidate our enemies.

Add to all of this the fact that the media, quite frankly, cannot be trusted to tell fake leaks from real leaks.

My purpose in this post is not to condemn or celebrate Wikileaks or Julian Assange. I have concerns both about the impact of the leaks and about the impact of the calls for assassination and prosecution of Wikileaks and its informants. My purpose is to point out that we shouldn't suspend our critical faculties just because information is presented to us wrapped in words like "leaked." Leaked information is not inherently credible, nor are the people who leak or publish leaks. Leaked information is by its nature incomplete, and may be deliberately and misleadingly incomplete. If we treat leaks as if they are inherently credible and complete, then we allow ourselves to be manipulated as surely as if we took government press releases at face value.

A bit of wishful thinking from Fox News, at roughly 8:30 pm Saturday night.

If the site has web editors working on Saturday night, it will be down the memory hole by morning.

Why is it that the only people, seemingly in America, who oppose judging schoolteachers by the performance of their students, are … teachers?

Or at least their unions, who have declared war on the Los Angeles Times for daring to measure teacher effectiveness, and to name names:

The Los Angeles teachers union president said Sunday he was organizing a "massive boycott" of The Times after the newspaper began publishing a series of articles that uses student test scores to estimate the effectiveness of district teachers.

"You're leading people in a dangerous direction, making it seem like you can judge the quality of a teacher by … a test," said A.J. Duffy, president of United Teachers Los Angeles, which has more than 40,000 members.

Duffy said he would urge other labor groups to ask their members to cancel their subscriptions.

Forgive me, as I'm not a teacher, and I'm childless, but if I'm asked to judge the quality of a teacher at all, by what metric should I judge if not by student performance? By how nice a teacher is during parent-teacher conferences?  By whether she's a union delegate?  By her students' self-esteem, even if they can't multiply 11 by 12?

The Times study allows for, and takes into account, that teachers in different schools are given students of varying preparation and ability, by measuring teachers within individual schools and by using student improvement, as opposed to simple scores, to gauge effectiveness.

But it's war between the Los Angeles teachers union and the Times.  I believe I'll walk down to the local big newsstand tomorrow and buy a copy of the Times just to reward the paper for publishing this.

As Alex Tabarrok points out, the Los Angeles school district could derive the same or similar conclusions from the same data, but refuses to do so.  That the Times is doing it should place the paper front and center for a Pulitzer.  Effective teachers deserve to be recognized.  As for ineffective teachers, the right of the taxpayers and parents of Los Angeles to know trumps the right of drones to put in time until the pension vests.

The actual report may be read here.

If you have a Google account, personalize your news settings with a specific search for the term "Greg Packer".

Then wait:

Greg Packer secured the first spot in line by getting to the storefront at 5 a.m. "I love Al. I love soup. And I can't wait for that first bowl of soup," said Packer, who chose chicken vegetable.

Greg Packer couldn't give a shit about Al, or about Al's soup.  Greg Packer is a professional "man on the street" who's appeared in so many media interviews, in which he always "gives good quote" that he's become a running joke among bloggers.  As Patterico wrote:

[N]othing’s impossible. You might have thought it would be impossible for Greg Packer to get himself quoted in Big Media any more, but you’d be wrong about that…

Whenever you read an "event" or "man on the street" or "trend" story from the media, ask yourself whether it was manufactured from the ground up, whether it's just filler.  Google the names.  You might be surprised.

Jeffrey Lord and his supporters claim that he is a writer for American Spectator.

They're lying. Probably for political advantage — out of bare, naked hatred for every thing that makes America great.

How did I discover this outrage? Several ways. First, note in the link above that American Spectator lists Lord as a "contributor," not as a writer. Also, the page about him says he is an "author," not a writer. Moreover, I couldn't find him on this wikipedia page called "Lists of writers." Furthermore, Merriam-Webster defines "writer" as "one who writes stock options," and I've seen no evidence whatsoever that Lord writes stock options.

Therefore, even though in one manner of speaking he "writes," and even though he uses his own name (which I am recently given to understand is the sine qua non of credibility and literary excellence), he's not a writer, and nobody ought to read him.

There. I've constructed an irrefutable logical edifice.

How did I learn to do so?

Why, from Jeffrey Lord himself.

See, Lord wrote — though not as a writer — that controversial former federal employee Shirley Sherrod is a liar. Why is she a liar? Well, in the course of discussing race in America, Sherrod claimed that a relative of hers, Bobby Hall, was lynched in the South. But Lord knows, that's not right. Ask the Supreme Court itself. Here's how they describe what happened to Bobby Hall:

This case involves a shocking and revolting episode in law enforcement. Petitioner Screws was sheriff of Baker County, Georgia. He enlisted the assistance of petitioner Jones, a policeman, and petitioner Kelley, a special deputy, in arresting Robert Hall, a citizen of the United States and of Georgia. The arrest was made late at night at Hall's home on a warrant charging Hall with theft of a tire. Hall, a young negro about thirty years of age, was handcuffed and taken by car to the courthouse. As Hall alighted from the car at the courthouse square, the three petitioners began beating him with their fists and with a solid-bar blackjack about eight inches long and weighing two pounds. They claimed Hall had reached for a gun and had used insulting language as he alighted from the car. But after Hall, still handcuffed, had been knocked to the ground, they continued to beat him from fifteen to thirty minutes until he was unconscious. Hall was then dragged feet first through the courthouse yard into the jail and thrown upon the floor, dying. An ambulance was called, and Hall was removed to a hospital, where he died within the hour and without regaining consciousness. There was evidence that Screws held a grudge against Hall, and had threatened to "get" him.

Aha! sayeth the Lord. There's nothing in there about lynching. It doesn't even mention a rope. He was beaten to death, you big dummy. Black folks and their exaggerations! QED.

Now, people like Radley Balko — not to mention Lord's own colleagues at the Spectator, might lack the unique mental agility of a Lord. They're insisting on looking at statutes, and actual definitions, to show that "lynching" is a term used to describe mob murders of all sorts, not just ones accomplished with a rope.

But Balko and his ilk forget that in the year of our Lord, there is one supreme authority on the meaning of words, including "lynch."

I refer, of course, to HUMPTY. MOTHERFUCKING. DUMPTY.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master — that's all.'

Make no mistake that our Lord is a master. So "lynched" means what he wants it to mean.

That's why he embarked on a furious, indignant defense of his definition of "lynched", snapping at his detractors. In the course of that defense, he informed us that (1) even if there was no rope, it couldn't be a lynching, because only three people did it, and that's not a "mob", and (2) the Supreme Court said that the murder was "under the color of law," meaning that they had legal authority to do it, so it couldn't be a lynching.

Now petty detractors might argue that anti-lynching bills of the time defined "mob" as three or more people. But Lord thinks that's not what it means, and that's the only relevant point.

Petty detractors might point out that "under color of law" means, and has always meant, under pretense of official right, not under actual official right. Hence, when the Supreme Court took up the case of the 1964 murder of civil rights activists Michael Henry Schwerner, James Earl Chaney and Andrew Goodman by Mississippi law enforcement, and agreed that they had acted "under color of law," the Court was not suggesting that the murders were lawful. Of course, that definition of "color of law" is an obscure issue, known only to lawyers and marginally literate people capable of reading the newspaper without reducing it to an illegible pulp with their OMG-A-NEGRO-IS-PRESIDENT spittle. Moreover, if Jeff Lord is a master of the language, what stops him from being a master of what the law is as well?

Other detractors might assert that all of this misses the point — that only a lunatic would quibble over the use of the term "lynched" to describe a brutal racist murder in the first place, and that such quibbling demonstrates a gravely disordered approach to the subject. Lord knows, that ain't right. History, and the people in it, are only there to advance our current political agenda. Even a non-writer like Jeffrey Lord can tell you that.

He died in bed of old age, something Richard Nixon, who put Schorr on the famous "enemies list," wouldn't have wanted.

I didn't agree with Schorr on much of anything.  He was a fossilized New Deal liberal who was probably amazed that the computer keyboard his interns used to type his NPR commentary didn't require ribbon replacement.  But he never trusted the government, whether the White House occupant had an R or a D by his name.  And his voice was an audio definition of the word "avuncular."

There probably isn't much muck in heaven, but if there is, Schorr will no doubt enjoy raking it up.

Thanks to Dave Weigel, who is presently homeless, for the tip.

In a past life, Lee Bollinger was a lawyer and law professor specializing in First Amendment issues.  He was the author of scholarly works advocating and celebrating freedom of the press.  Today, Lee Bollinger is the president of Columbia University, which collects millions of dollars from students looking for jobs as journalists.

One suspects that past life Lee Bollinger must be spinning in his grave at what present day Lee Bollinger is writing in the Wall Street Journal:

Both the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission are undertaking studies of ways to ensure the steep economic decline faced by newspapers and broadcast news does not deprive Americans of the essential information they need as citizens. One idea under consideration is enhanced public funding for journalism.

In other words, Bollinger wants a bailout for journalism.  Someone's got to hire all of those J-school grads, and the newspapers sure aren't doing it now.

But perhaps bailout's not the best term.  A "bailout" is hopefully a singular event, like a bridge loan to help a friend get back on his feet.  One time only, unless you're Chrysler.  What Bollinger actually proposes is more like the farm subsidy, an ongoing, perpetual wealth transfer from taxpayers to a favored class.

Bollinger confesses unease.

The idea of public funding for the press stirs deep unease in American culture. To many it seems inconsistent with our strong commitment, embodied in the First Amendment, to having a free press capable of speaking truth to power and to all of us. This press is a kind of public trust, a fourth branch of government. Can it be trusted when the state helps pay for it?

I submit that a better question would be, "Can the public trust the government not to dominate and control the press when Congress is writing the checks?"  Why not ask a scientist!

Of course Bollinger's question makes me uneasy as well, as does his inability to answer it.  He poses it, just to show kids back in the free speech hood that he hasn't sold out to The Man, then proceeds to, well, sell out to The Man.

American journalism is not just the product of the free market, but of a hybrid system of private enterprise and public support. By the middle of the last century, daily newspapers were becoming natural monopolies in cities and communities across the country.

They did it by selling the public what it wanted, and selling it better than the competition.  Not with a handout coerced from people who didn't want to buy their product.

Publishers and editors drew on the revenue to develop highly specialized expertise that enhanced coverage of economics, law, architecture, medicine, science and technology, foreign affairs and many other fields.

Again, they earned that revenue by selling customers a quality product at an affordable price, just as GM once did. The same way that Studebaker once dominated the horse buggy industry.

Ironically, we already depend to some extent on publicly funded foreign news media for much of our international news—especially through broadcasts of the BBC and BBC World Service on PBS and NPR. Such news comes to us courtesy of British citizens who pay a TV license fee to support the BBC and taxes to support the World Service. The reliable public funding structure, as well as a set of professional norms that protect editorial freedom, has yielded a highly respected and globally powerful journalistic institution.

But that's the United Kingdom!  The British government is too honorable to interfere with the BBC.  What about a country where the people elect Texas oilmen, or Chicago machine politicians, to high office?

There are examples of other institutions in the U.S. where state support does not translate into official control.  The most compelling are our public universities and our federal programs for dispensing billions of dollars annually for research.

Is that a fact, Mr. Bollinger?

To take a very current example, we trust our great newspapers to collect millions of dollars in advertising from BP while reporting without fear or favor on the company's environmental record only because of a professional culture that insulates revenue from news judgment.

I have a counter-theory.

My counter-theory is that for years, perhaps decades, BP ran a slipshod, dangerous operation in the gulf (you do remember that the American arm of British Petroleum is a merger, that there was once a company known as "Gulf Oil"?), and that for years, perhaps decades, our great newspapers did not report one single, solitary fucking word about BP/Gulf's environmental record.  Partially because our great newspapers accepted millions of dollars in advertising revenue from BP/Gulf, and partially because reporting on oil rig safety hazards isn't sexy, unless there's an oil rig disaster.  Combine the two, and you have a snooze story ("There hasn't been a spill.  Can't you find a dead bird?") that alienates a major advertiser.

Now imagine the government as the dominant partner with big journalism:  "Problems with the Minerals and Mine Agency?  There hasn't been a spill.  Can't you find a dead coal miner?"

As for why the papers are reporting on BP/Gulf's environmental and safety records now, well, DUH.  The people demand it, and if BP complains, the New York Times and Washington Post will write a story about editorial threats from a despised foreign corporation, earning a Pulitzer, and the plaudits of people like Lee Bollinger and Barack Obama in the process.

Speaking of the gulf, I commend CNN, which has been nearly alone among big media types in seriously complaining about government restrictions in reporting on the disaster.  Would CNN have the guts to do so if it was expecting a big check from a very political administration at the end of the quarter?  Probably, but I wonder…

Or consider another area where we have well established mechanisms of government support for even the most oppositional views: defense counsel in our courts, where government-paid lawyers (including those in uniform military courts) will do their utmost to undermine cases brought by the government itself. Playing the role of calling our government to account is an accepted ethic of the legal profession despite the political hostility it can sometimes generate.

You flatter me Mr. Bollinger.  You know I'm a lawyer too.

But riddle me this, Batman:  Government pays for indigent defense because it's constitutionally required to do so.   The logic of Gideon, which I accept, is that when the government pursues the poor criminal with the sword of its own attorneys, due process and the right to counsel require that the poor criminal be provided a shield with which to defend himself.

But the poor don't have, constitutionally, a right to newspapers.  The Constitution only guarantees freedom of the press, not a free press. Or does it?  Should the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, highbrow papers, be required to hand out free editions to poor people in the Bronx and Compton?  That's a helluva subsidy, don't you think?

And if there is such a requirement, shouldn't the Timeses be required to report on matters of interest to the poor? You know, trash media, things the poor care about, things like Lindsay Lohan's jail sentence and Britney Spears' fat ass and John Edwards' marital infidelity.

Well, scratch that last one.  The Times on both coasts had plenty of opportunities to report on Edwards but refused, even though the work had been done for them.  Maybe that kind of business judgment is why the Enquirer has cash to pay for stories, while the Times, New York and Los Angeles, need a taxpayer handout.  Still, if the people are writing the checks, don't they have the right to demand bread and circuses, through funded mandates and regulation, from those who accept the money?  I rather think they do.

To me a key priority is to strengthen our public broadcasting role in the global arena. In today's rapidly globalizing and interconnected world, other countries are developing a strong media presence. In addition to the BBC, there is China's CCTV and Xinhua news …

Funny you should bring up the Chinese media while claiming that state subsidies won't impair freedom of the press.

Oh well, as others have pointed out, you'll come to your senses around 2012.  Under the Palin-Huckabee administration.

Today is "Take Your Dog To Work Day." If I had wished to do so, I could have taken one of my dogs to work.  I practice, by choice, in a small laid back insurance defense firm, having left a larger law firm (not Skadden by any means) because I could see myself dying of a heart attack at the age of fifty if I'd stayed with those backstabbing stuffed shirts.

The money isn't as good, but I have a stereo in my office, more unusual art than what I could have displayed at the big firm, and I can take my dog to work.

As a hobby, I write for a "Take Your Dog To Work" blog.  I can write about anything I wish.  I can cuss up a storm.  I can abuse and vilify anyone I choose, and I can write under a pseudonym, like the nameless coward that I am.

Dave Weigel found out, the hard way, that you can't take your dog to work at Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom.

Weigel, long one of the more entertaining journalist / bloggers at Reason and later the Washington Independent, "resigned" today from his new gig as the Washington Post's blogger in chief on the conservative political movement.  Weigel, as anyone who can read could tell, is no conservative though he covers the movement well.  His resignation was prompted by the revelation of several emails he'd written, he thought in private, concerning Matt Drudge and the followers of Ron Paul.  As it turned out Weigel trusted the wrong people, and the emails were revealed.

Weigel, coming from a "Take Your Dog To Work" background at Reason, a "Take Your Dog To Work" political magazine if ever there was one, made the mistake of taking his dog to work at the Washington Post, which is Skadden Arps.

The dog promptly shit on the rug, humped an important client who was allergic to fur, knocked over the aquarium filled with rare Japanese koi, then vomited fish bones all over the managing partner's office.  And so Dave Weigel first apologized, then got to carry his belongings out of the office in a cardboard box.

It's as simple as that.  Some claim that Weigel was fired for "having an opinion". That's shit on the rug, and it won't come out.  Weigel was fired for forgetting that you can't take your dog to work at Skadden Arps, no matter what they tell new associates about the wonderful lifestyle they'll enjoy working at the world's most prestigious law firm.

No doubt Weigel will land on his feet.  He's talented and he's smart.  But he'd be better off at a "Take Your Dog To Work" magazine or blog.

I've wondered why some of Weigel's former colleagues, such as Radley Balko or Katherine Mangu Ward, aren't working for the Post or the Times.  "Shit man, Balko's a thousand times smarter than David Brooks, and a much better reporter than James Risen.  He should be in the big leagues."

But they probably enjoy taking their dogs to work now and then, around people who actually like dogs and won't be offended by the smell.