03.17.07

Just so everyone knows I’m “fair and balanced…”

Posted in Politics, Media Morons at 2:35 pm by JEG

The Washington Times engaged in some poor editing on this one.

I was interested in the event itself, not the wardrobe of the individual providing testimony. This segment is crappy journalism:

The 90-minute testimony took on the atmosphere of a circus trial; two dozen photographers scrummed and elbowed to snap shots of the petite bleached blonde, clad in a low-cut white blouse, beige herringbone jacket and snug brown slacks.

The fact that Ms. Plame is a “bleached blonde,” and wore a “low-cut white blouse” is so completely immaterial that its inclusion in a NEWS story (not an editorial or opinion piece) is inconceivable to me. And describing her “snug” brown slacks??? The reporter may as well have just said she had a nice ass and wore a shirt to show her boobs to the panel! This type of shabby, petty writing does nothing but give ammunition to those who view the Washington Times as a wacky, far-right, amateur rag. It does nothing but discredit a paper that has some extremely talented and saavy reporters and columnists (like Bill Gertz, for instance).

In a news story, you stick to the facts. The Washington Times isn’t unique - most major newspapers have lost sight of the idea that the news pages ought to be dispassionate and objective. Without question, they ought not to include references to fashion - particularly in the subtle-yet-obvious way that the Times portrayed Ms. Plame as a bimbo wearing tight pants. Absolutely disgraceful journalism.

Permalink Comments

Representation for DC?

Posted in Politics at 2:08 pm by JEG

In my view, this is a legitimate thing to debate, and having lived there (well, just across the Potomac in Virginia) for a number of years, I’m not sure where I stand. On the one hand, I can understand the reasoning behind the opposition to giving DC seats in the Congress, based on Constitutional interpretation.

On the other hand, residents of the District ARE citizens, entitled to full participation in our Republic. On a purely practical level, I have a hard time arguing that DC residents shouldn’t have a voice in the political process.

TheTalkArena has been blasted in the past for being “conservative” or even “extreme.” So this may shock the multitude (ha!) of readers out there, but I found a particular segment of the above-linked article to be telling:

The bill seeks to increase the House permanently to 437 seats, from 435. In a bipartisan compromise, one seat would go to the overwhelmingly Democratic District, which has a nonvoting delegate in the House. The other would go to the next state in line to pick up a seat based on the 2000 Census: Utah, which leans Republican.

The Washington Post certainly leans to the left, so I’m not certain whether or not the implication of DC being “overwhelmingly Democratic” is the complete story behind the White House’s opposition. But I can easily entertain the notion, and can’t dismiss it. Yet if the bill offers another seat to Utah, then it’s a wash, given Utah’s Republican persuasion. So I can’t fully accept the idea that the White House’s opposition is based on partisanship.

The other practical aspect to consider is that the residents of DC tend to elect idiots. DC’s track record is pretty poor - even laughable - considering some of the choices its residents have made in the recent past. Case in point. (Hat tip to www.dcist.com).

When your Mayor smokes crack and serves a prison term, you may forgive him, but you don’t elect the man again. And the residents of DC keep putting him in trusted positions of public service. True Civil Rights leaders don’t smoke crack and evade taxes for years. That’s the bottom line. A huge mass of voters with this kind of track record is kind of a scary thought.

In the end, however, I’d argue that DC residents should have a voice, and not just a non-voting figurehead. The more engaged they become in the process, the better.

Permalink Comments