Don Draper gets to be a hedcut but Rainbow Dash doesn’t?
Philip Bowring, “Britain, Australia and the U.S. — What is it about Anglophones?,” The International Herald Tribune, March 27, 2003
Found this while tearing into some shoddy News journalism and pre-emptively heading off Obama-coinciding media superlatives about how close Australia and the US are.
One of the least-appreciated perks of being David Brooks is that the NYT allows him to lead off his columns with anecdotes that most likely did not happen.
This reminds me of that time that Thomas Friedman was taking a cab in Dubai, and the cabbie, you see, had some very interesting opinions.
found this via sexartandpolitics but clicking through to the notes i had to reblog from emergency reports for A+ addition.
As I told Twitter…

3. Remember that what matters out of Iowa is the spin.
4. Remember that the spin will be influenced by two main things: press biases, and party actors.
5. I count three big relevant press biases. One is that “news” trumps “not news”, which means that surprises get more coverage than whatever is expected to happen — which is where the expectations game really does matter. The second is that the press has limited capacity, and can only really handle one big and one minor story line. The third is that there’s a press bias in favor of portraying the nomination contest as close and uncertain.
The half-century between 1912 and 1962 was a period of … impressive social cohesion.
Oh, hi, David Brooks. You’re an idiot.
Bridie Jabour and Daniel Hurst, “OK to be racist, says axed candidate,” Sydney Morning Herald, February 22, 2012
OK, this guy’s a prick; that’s pretty straight forward. Labor was right to disendorse him, and you’ve gotta wonder how they allowed him to be a candidate in the first place. Wasn’t anyone paying attention?
But here’s the interesting bit:
The 19-year-old said he did not want to resign from the candidacy for the seat of Southern Downs and that it was forced on him.
[…]
He said he would have worded differently comments he posted four to five years ago, comparing homosexuals to paedophiles.
Is this advanced warning of what politicians who grew up with the Internet are going to face? This is not an ideal test case; Watson was still making nasty comments online as of last month. But the article reporting his sacking discusses things he posted when he was fourteen or fifteen. His youth blurs the issue a bit, but do we really want to talk about the stupid and offensive things politicans were saying when they were in high school? Five years ago might seem recent, but a nineteen year old has changed a lot more over that period of time than, say, a thirty-nine year old.
Or you would hope. Seems like Watson didn’t grow up much at all, and is paying the price. Which, in this case, is perfectly justified.
Cityfail!
(Source: theawl)
Ryan Bakken, “UPDATE: Marilyn takes America by viral storm … thanks to Eatbeat review of Live Garden,” Grand Forks Herald, March 8, 2012
That explanatory paragraph!
(Original review here. I don’t find it particularly absurd because I’ve never been to Olive Garden.)
Andrew Gelman, Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State (2008)
I suspect there may sometimes be a racial bias as well — I’ll be interested to see if Gelman discusses this. I think for a lot of political journalists, lower-income black and Hispanic voters code as non-white rather than lower income, and therefore their voting preferences are discounted.
Paul Krugman, “On Ryan Apologists,” The New York Times, April 7, 2012
The temptation is to read this as a politically motivated attack on a Republican politician. No. It’s a reasoned critique of a too-prevalent form of faulty analysis. There is nothing per se admirable about excusing yourself from partisan politics on the grounds that your disinterest authorizes you to act as an unbiased arbiter.