For once, I might be glad to be wrong

In recent weeks, I and others have made much of Fox's repeated dances around the truth. In the spirit of intellectual honesty, however, I feel obligated to present a recent memo going around Fox's offices, recently leaked to the public. In it, they essentally claim that the recent video splices and the like are purely accidental, and if they are continued, jobs will be lost. As follows:

Subject: Quality Control

We had a mistake on Newsroom today when a wrong book cover went on screen during a guest segment, the kind of thing that can fall through the cracks on any day with any story given the large amount of elements and editorial we run through our broadcasts. Unfortunately, it is the latest in a series of mistakes on FNC in recent months. We have to all improve our performance in terms of ensuring error-free broadcasts. To that end, there was a meeting this afternoon between senior managers and the folks who run the daytime shows in which expectations were reviewed, and the following results were announced:
Effective immediately, there is zero tolerance for on-screen errors. Mistakes by any member of the show team that end up on air may result in immediate disciplinary action against those who played significant roles in the "mistake chain," and those who supervise them. That may include warning letters to personnel files, suspensions, and other possible actions up to and including termination, and this will all obviously play a role in performance reviews. So we now face a great opportunity to review and improve on our workflow and quality control efforts. To make the most of that opportunity, effective immediately, Newsroom is going to "zero base" our newscast production. That means we will start by going to air with only the most essential, basic, and manageable elements. To share a key quote from today's meeting: "It is more important to get it right, than it is to get it on." We may then build up again slowly as deadlines and workloads allow so that we can be sure we can quality check everything before it makes air, and we never having to explain, retract, qualify or apologize again. Please know that jobs are on the line here. I can not stress that enough. I will review again during our Monday editorial meeting, and in the days and weeks ahead. This experience should make us stronger editorially, and I encourage everyone to invest themselves one hundred and ten percent in this effort.

Now, given Fox's long track record of 'errors' like these, I am DEEPLY cynical about this. My instincts tell me to interpret this as either a "hey, lay low, people are noticing" or, alternately, an intentional 'leak' aimed at damage control. HAVING SAID THAT, this is a case where I would absolutely love to be proven wrong. As such, I'm going to do my best to suspend my natural cynicism, and adopt a 'wait and see' approach. Fox presents a right-wing view on matters, that's their stock in trade, there's nothing likely to change there, but I hold out hope that just maybe, these little 'glitches', as with the party mislabeling for Republicans under scandal in times past, have really been simple mistakes. Hey, you never know.

Hat Tip: TPM

Seriously? I thought I was kidding!

The other day in class we were discussing Palin's book coming out, and I made a crack about Fox splicing in footage in order to make the crowds look bigger. I was so certain I was kidding. I mean, it's not like they'd try that again one week after being caught at it, right? Well...

Seriously, it's like something out of a bad movie. Fox's explanation, according to TPM, is as follows:

"This was a production error in which the copy editor changed a script and didn't alert the control room to update the video,''

Funny how they'd make exactly the same mistake that they did ONE WEEK AGO! Seems to me that if you make a "mistake" like that, you make damn sure it doesn't happen again for a while, not go in for a repeat performance. Frankly, I'm not sure which part offends me more, the bald-faced lies, or that they really expect us to be dumb enough to believe it.

Ceiling Cat is watching you piss

Some days, a man has to set aside politics just to share the joy and terror of complete whackjobs with the world. Submitted for your approval: A preacher who's convinced that the problem with America is that apparently, not enough men pee standing up.

I wish this were fake, but you can't make this level of crazy up. Hell, I hate to bring this up, because it gives him some veneer of credibility, but doesn't this sound like more of an argument AGAINST standing peeing? Not to him, apparently. Oh, and while I'm at it, the Germany thing is a complete load. Tell you what, new rule, pastors: Do your business and get out. Don't hang around inspecting my pissing style.

Some of the better comments I've seen (Warning: Some contents are extremely crude):

I think the big problem may be pastors hanging around men's rooms to watch what other men do with their private parts.

Why would you piss against a wall? Unless you want splashback piss all over your pants...

So the problem with America is Germans pee sitting down? WTF?

I knew a girl in college who could piss into a coke bottle. Now that's a well-aimed stream. Maybe she was blessed by god.

If I would find this guy peeing standing up into a toilet and spraying his pee all around the room, he'd have to _lick_ it clean.

Hmm, biblical watersports.
I'm detecting some sort of bronze age version of rule 34 here.

Hat Tip: Pharyngula

No news is Fox News

A lot has been made of this ongoing tiff between Fox and the White House, and last I heard, neither showed any sign of backing down. I must wonder, though, why anyone thinks Fox has a leg to stand on here. I know, supporters frequently claim that freedom of the press allows Fox to put forth whatever views they please, and I agree, but that freedom doesn't include the right to an audience, and it ABSOLUTELY doesn't include an automatic White House press pass. Consider the following:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
For Fox Sake!
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

In short, Fox wants to be considered an opinion network instead of a news network. That's absolutely fine, I have no problem with that at all. That said, do you know who else qualifies as an opinion journalist? ANY REMOTELY POLITICAL BLOGGER EVER. I'm an opinion journalist, and I for damn sure wouldn't expect access to the White House press room. It would be awesome, sure, but it's not going to happen. They want to be considered a major news network (with all the privileges thereof), but be held to the same press standards I am. Yeah, no.

Of course, there are times when the "we're just putting out opinion" just doesn't cover it, and they get caught in an outright lie:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Sean Hannity Uses Glenn Beck's Protest Footage
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

And now, Stewart's reaction to what we will loosely refer to as Hannity's "apology":

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Sean Hannity Apologizes to Jon
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

*blinks* I'm sorry, what? Hannity's claiming that this was some isolated, minor mistake? An idiot could have caught that, so I'm not sure which would be more damning, an outright lie or the absolute incompetence he's claiming. Further, that claim would be a hell of a lot more compelling if there weren't a well-established track record of Fox pulling stupid crap like this. (You ever notice how on Fox, every politician in a scandal suddenly has a D next to their names?) Hell, how can they expect anyone to believe anything they say when they've actually been to court before defending their right to just make crap up? Seriously, I'm not kidding, look up Akre v. Fox!

For the record, I agree that, strictly speaking, they have the right to lie, if they so choose. I have no objection to that. I would love it if other intellectually dishonest pricks followed suit in coming clean about it. However, part of being a news source is having some measure of reliability. A mere opinion source that feels free to make up and/or distort any information they want is useless, and has absolutely no place as part of the White House press corps. One of the great things about this country is the right to say what you want, but that doesn't extend to some some sort of right to be taken seriously.

It's official: No sleep for the Sergeant tonight, folks.

I swear, waiting for poll results is worse than crack withdrawal. I need something to take the edge off before my fingernails are bitten clean away, so this week, I'll do something different: A running analysis of Maine's Question 1 and Washington state's Referendum 71. For those who aren't familiar with these, here goes: A while back, Maine's legislature finally put through a bill granting same-sex couples equal rights as straight couples. Option 1 seeks to repeal that. A push for No on 1 could be one of the first major victories for same-sex marriage at the ballot box.

Washington's Ref. 71, on the other hand, is basically the opposite: a vote to preserve the existence of a law that gives legal protection to gay couples. A vote of Yes here could have similar implications to a No in Maine. Either way, though, both of these will likely be very, very, very close, hence my aforementioned pseudo-crack withdrawal. Here goes:

As of 11:30 PM EST, Maine has Yes leading by ~2-3%, with 68% of precincts returned. Obviously, way to close for anyone to call at this point, but as a same-sex marriage proponent, I'm getting nervous.

Washington, on the other hand, currently has Yes leading as well, by ~4-5%, with 42% reporting in. Again close, but this one at least gives me hope. Either way, I'll keep posting as new info comes in.


Midnight: No change yet in Washington. Maine has 74% in, and the gap is widening, with Yes now leading by ~4%. That said, if same-sex marriage has a shot anywhere in the state, it'd be in Portland, and most of their precincts aren't in yet. Further, that difference is only ~20,000 votes. Sounds massive, but each side already has 10 times that number, so it's not that much. More later.


12:15 AM: Nothing new from either of the main races, but NY-23's done. Owens (D) won, Hoffman's conceded. Still, though I was opposed to him, he made a very impressive 3rd party showing (even if the Republican did have to thrown out by her own party for it to happen).

12:35 AM: No real changes. No on 1 in Maine has slipped a little, with currently ~4-5% down. 84% in, so it's really starting to look a loss for civil rights there. Absolutely nothing in Washington, 50% in, same breakdown as before. I think the Washington ballot counters all went home for the night or something.


1 AM: Washington's a done deal, apparently. The Secretary of State for Washington declared Yes on 71 to be the winner.


1:10 AM: Okay, I'm calling Maine. 87% of precincts in, and No on 1 trails by 5%. Looks like opponents of civil rights have won this one. I'll keep one eye on it just in case, though. Medical marijuana bill passed, so that's awesome, at least. Oh well, some dude's streaming Pulp Fiction on a webcam, so time for some epic.

Fact checking the Pauline Howe issue

A couple of days ago, Zack brought up the case of an elderly woman, one Pauline Howe, who was purportedly visited by police for protesting a gay pride march. The story seemed a little unusual, and the visit excessive, so I decided to fact-check it a little bit. In researching, I found that, while a real event, the topic was really only mentioned in a couple of sources, particularly the far-right UK tabloid the Daily Mail. As this might indicate, the event took place in the UK, not any US location. Though free speech is of course still valued there, there is no constitutional enumeration protecting it to as high a level as in the US. As such, an attempt to equate hate crime policies in the two countries is futile at best.

The second issue is that, contrary to the Mail's claims, her attitude toward gays seems rather serious. From the Guardian UK:

The Mail described Howe's letter as an attempt to "complain", although the article later mentions in passing that Howe had described homosexuals as "sodomites" with "perverted" sexual practices that spread sexually transmitted diseases.

Further, it wasn't as if she was simply sitting at home writing letters, but actively attended the rally with the sole purpose of being intentionally intrusive to the marchers. Granted, no one has the right to not be offended, and the police visitation was more than a little excessive, but think: If someone showed up at the Million Man March dressed in the robes of a Klansman, what exactly do you recommend? Contrary to the protestations of some, there is absolutely a connection between these attitudes and very real violence. Attitudes like this don't happen in isolation, and people who go on about how much they hate gays, but always add "oh, but I wouldn't hurt them. I just think they deserve to die" need to learn that.

What's next, Nike's Next Great Shoe Sower contest?

Anyone who's spent any time on Craigslist knows that the site is propped up by two things: Ads for hookers and really, really cheap job offers. Hell, there's a whole site dedicated to compiling and mocking these crappy offers at workingfail.com. If you think about it, though, that isn't all that surprising given the source. It's mostly startups, amateurs, and other people who don't really know what they're asking for. Therefore, imagine my surprise when I find that the Washington Post was making an offer that makes those look outright generous:

The Next Great Pundit Contest!

Yes, that's right, the Washington Post is now pretty much throwing in the towel, seeking to rely more on bloggers and webcam owners, rather than actual reporting. I'm no business major, and I know newspaper subscriptions are down, but is lowering the quality of content really the solution? Honestly, though, the lack of quality they're inviting speaks for itself, so there's not much to say here. Almost as absurd, however, is from the grand prize itself: For a year of work and submissions, you can walk away with a grand total of $2600. Yes, that's the real amount. Oh, and that's IF YOU WIN:

By entering the Contest, each entrant grants Sponsor an unrestricted, royalty-free, perpetual right to display, modify, perform, copy and create derivative work from his/her Entry.

Maybe I'm misreading this, but it sounds like they can use the submissions pretty much however the hell they want, and tough shit to the entrant. If that includes passing it off as their own, so be it. This whole thing is so ridiculous that it's almost past my ability to mock. Therefore, I'm going to let Andy Cobbon do it for me.