An Unfortunate Farewell

It's sad it had to end this way.

I dunno how I feel about this. Yeah, Helen Thomas' comments were stupid -- really stupid. But the woman's been a member of the WHPC since JFK. And, while certainly not politically safe, the views she voiced aren't utterly outrageous.

It's also important to note that she's of relatively recent Palestinian descent. I don't know if that influenced her decision, but if it did -- well, I dunno if that makes it more or less tolerable.

Anyway, it's really a shame that someone who's been at the top of the game for so long (frickin' JFK) has to go out like this. She deserves a graceful exit, and her unfortunate comments probably mean she will be denied that.

Bizarro World

This is bizarre.

The Rundown:

A.) Does this mean Rush Limbaugh doesn't really care about gays, but instead goes on his borderline-homophobic diatribes out of a carefully-calculated move to court his constituency?

B.) Isn't Elton John rich enough that he could y'know, not take a gig with the original Angry Conservative Pundit (TM)?

C.) Fourth wife. She's more than 20 years younger. She's more than a little attractive. Shouldn't that make Ye Olde Family Values people a little uh, uncomfortable?

The Cool Stuff Department

Don't sneeze.

This is pretty crazy. Could you imagine a bunch of Americans doing this? Especially the whole "work on something for six days before immediately dismantling it?"

Yeah, those are some freeeed minds there, maaaan.

Ps: I'd name mine Nelson.

Fixing the Oil Spill with Magic

Don't worry guys, they got this.

Read the last two paragraphs:

Meanwhile, "Avatar" and "Titantic" director James Cameron joined a group of scientists and other experts who met Tuesday with officials from the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal agencies for a brainstorming session on stopping the massive oil leak.

The Canadian-born director is considered an expert on underwater filming and remote vehicle technologies.

He'll fix it.

History via CNN

This is cool.

A little self-serving, but cool.

This Week In Owned.

Every once in a while, I stumble upon a piece of writing that makes me giggle malevolently. You know those moments in action movies when there's that moment of grim satisfaction after the hero absolutely destroys the villian, and all the pent-up urges you've had to see that villian get annhilated are released?

Yeah, sometimes that happens in writing. And, for a word nerd like me, it's just as glorious.

For example, a Salon.com article by Wajahat Ali decrying the shallowness and inanity of Sex and the City 2.

Kaboom.

The Money Shot: (although there are many.)

"Our four female cultural avatars, like imperialistic Barbies, milk Abu Dhabi for leisure and hedonism without making any discernable, concrete efforts to learn about her people and their daily lives."

Imperialistic Barbies...well-played, sir.

When it's Hard to Be Impartial

A lot of what they teach us in journalism school is not the nitty-gritty of reporting -- you only really learn that through practical experience. I can attest to that -- in one week interning at the Times-Picayune, I've learned far more in one week here about practical skills than a whole semester of mass comm classes.

But a lot of discussion in journalism classes you simply can't get in a newsroom is about the ideals and standards journalists are supposed to espouse. Among those, Impartiality (a.k.a. unbiased reporting, a.k.a objective reporting, although those are often up for debate) is pretty big.

A reporter is supposed to provide facts, not editorialize (that's what the opinion section is for.) A reporter is trying to get the truth, inasmuch as such a noble concept really exists, and that truth should be free of opinions and prejudices.

Sometimes that's a lot more difficult than it sounds.

Case in point -- today I was assigned to cover a panel discussion featuring a group of coastal Alaskans and Louisianans. These were community activists who had heart-wrenching stories about how erosion, oil spills, and climate change had devestated their livelihoods and shredded their way of life. They were railing against oil companies and government (obviously) and as I furiously scribbled notes my training kicked in.

These people have a vested interest. They are inherently biased against government. Proceed with caution.

I'm conflicted about just how appropriate this is.

In the end, the article I gave my editor was exactly what she had asked for. But it's easy for a reporter to shift perspective on an argument or subtly and indirectly argue for a side based on the quotes they pick. By picking out some of the angrier, more emotionally powerful quotes, my article could easily be interpreted as leaning against oil companies and those who don't believe in global warming (it wasn't, at least not intentionally.)

Is that not impartial? More importantly, is that bad?

Hard question. No easy answer. Happens every day in a newsroom.