Do they sell by the slice?
"He indicated, without explicitly specifying, that those matters concerned support activities for the 2008 presidential race of Barack Obama."
Now THAT'S funny.
Also: Rev. Brooks, go away.
My favorite response to this foolish came a few weeks ago from Rep. Gary Odom...
"This year's session has only just begun and already a lawmaker is making Tennessee a laughingstock. This time, it's Republican Rep. Eric Swafford who's slipping on the banana peel. He's proudly become America's first state legislator to join the wacky legal action by the weird Russian dentist Orly Taitz demanding Barack Obama's birth certificate.
When reporters asked House Democrats for their reaction this morning during a press conference, Rep. Larry Miller was incredulous.
'He did what? Who's Eric Swafford?' [Miller ]asked. 'He's from Mars,' Democratic leader Gary Odom scoffed."
Saltsman's withdrawl is hardly surprising and was in fact long-overdue. By the time of his announcement, he had secured only 1 public commitment to his campaign, and it was unlikely that he would have even appeared on the first ballot.
Davis' decision about the Governor's race is also not that big of a shocker--despite his great statewide name recognition, he's a Democratic Congressman holding onto a VERY conservative district. Dem House leadership in Washington knows that only he can hold that seat for the party. Hence the powerful committee appointment.
I wonder if anybody is talking to Andy Berke about re-directing his gubernatorial ambitions for Zach Wamp's 3rd district seat.
The truly sad thing about seeing the Rocky Mountain News and Tribune Co. go to the chopping block, and watching the CA and WMC slash their staffs is that credible, well-resourced news organizations are MORE vital--not less--in this era of blogs and "citizen journalists" and unlimited freelance punditry. Blogs are the new Xeroxed fanzines, not the new New York Timeses. Do bloggers occasionally break stories and uncover truths missed by "traditional media"? Of course; the law of averages works in their favor. But even when they do (as with the John Edwards scandal, to site one recent example) they seem to do it through old fashioned journalism techniques: relentless work, chasing down rumors, following up on leads, etc. It's not rocket science, it's work. The fact that this material sometimes breaks online instead of in printed form is not the "fault" of the internet, no matter how often the publishers so often say that it is.
The proliferation of bloggers and YouTube accounts and everybody with an opinion convincing themselves that their Woodward and Bernstein only underscores why real news organizations are necessary. At the end of the day, people don't want to sort through a billion online diaries to find their news. They want the simplicity, and they crave the credibility, of an evening TV newscast or a morning paper. I'm speaking euphemistically here, of course. People want ritual, honesty, and good, factual information given to them in a timely manner, and they'll like it whether it comes polybagged to their doorstep or straight to their bookmarked Firefox start-up page. The value that bloggers offer is immediacy, not good journalism. If owners, publishers, and editors understood an online distribution model better, they would see that it's possible for their organizations to offer both.
It's therefore heartbreaking to see Scripps and the Tribune Co. kill themselves because they refuse to let go of manufacturing an outdated product that nobody wants or needs, even as the need for what they can really offer increases daily. Watching them fire journalists, eliminate bureaus, and cut pages is like watching Ford get rid of its research and development department because they weren't selling enough Edsels, or watching Kodak go out of business because they didn't believe that digital cameras were really here to stay. The for-profit news business is like any other for-profit business: it is possible--no, essential--to adapt your product to fit the evolution of your customers without sacrificing what you do best. The paper element of the paper business will have to go; good news-gathering and good news-reporting doesn't have to, but at this rate, might.
What if the Commercial Appeal ceased its physical publication altogether, but could add four more writers to its Nashville office? Better coverage = more readers = more hits to its (better, but still need of improvement) website = more ad revenue.
Tseneau- this was not the Flyer's "scaremongering." It was a legitimate concern about voter turnout that we were experiencing, and which I voiced in the email that Jackson quotes above. Around 2pm, we saw a plateau in turnout, based on hard numbers and empirical evidence. As of 2:30pm, the real numbers we got out of the precincts--which included the early voting totals--were about 51%. My flurry of emails and calls to radio stations was a bit of a hail-mary pass to try to drive the after-work turnout. Looks like a mix of strong early voting, concern about the *prospect* of long lines, and perhaps an abiding sense of inevitability about the Presidential election's outcome kept people from voting in the numbers we had predicted. I am happy and grateful for every single person in our community who voted. I am so proud of all the hard work that so many groups put into voter registration and get out the vote activities. But the reality seems to be that unless we invest even more of our time, resources, and energy into putting ourselves truly into play as a battleground state, there are some turnout thresholds that we will not be able to cross. We can do it. Last night's victory wasn't the end. For a lot of us, it was just the beginning.
Over a quarter million people have already voted in Memphis--which could end up being only 40% of the total turnout. If anything, this could be too little, too late by the McCain camp.
All Comments »
By Leonard Gill
download this issue
click here to see more »