Newspapers

McGuinness’s less than surprising attitude to booze

James Forsyth says it is “deeply comic” for Martin McGuiness to complain: “I am not a fan of East-Enders or Coronation Street but my wife and my children, particularly the girls, watch the programme. I am appalled at the drunkenness that is quite clear for everybody to see and all of that before the 9 o’clock watershed when children as young as 8, 9, 10 and 11 are watching. Now I regard that as irresponsible broadcasting and I think something should be done about it.” Now of course, James is right to point out that Mr McGuiness’s role in murdering countless civilians scarcely gives him the clout to act, in

Sego and Barack and the press

Since the British press have been having all sorts of fun over the “snub”*  Gordon Brown thanks to a canceled meeting with John McCain it’s worth noting that press sillyness is not confined to the anglosphere by any means. Art Goldhammer has the details: Le Figaro has a perfidious piece on Ségolène Royal’s visit to the US. It leads with the insinuation that she was somehow snubbed by Barack Obama because she attended his rally without obtaining a picture of herself with the candidate. I said yesterday that I would not share my private impressions of Mme Royal, but in this case I will make an exception, because I had

Alex Massie

Another reason why mobile phones are bad: editors can find you

Things that make you despair: young journalists who have never read Scoop. In a better world that would be a sacking offence. Clive publishes a reminder of the novel’s glories as part of his excellent Notebook feature: “Come to think of it,” he added moodily, “there’s no point in answering anyway. Look at mine.” CABLE  FULLIER  OFTENER  PROMPTLIER  STOP  YOUR  SERVICE   BADLY  BEATEN  ALROUND   LACKING   HUMAN  INTEREST  COLOUR  DRAMA PERSONALITY  HUMOUR  INFORMATION  ROMANCE  VITALITY “Can’t say that’s not frank, can you?” said Corker. “God rot ’em.” Well, yes, exactly.

Jings! Whatever next?

Have I mentioned that this (admittedly old) ghastliness is enough on its own to make me wish Democrats select Barack Obama rather than Hillary Clinton? Well, it’s enough to make me reach for my Browning anyway: Bill Clinton suggested during a TV appearance that, should his wife be elected president of the United States, he be referred to as the “first laddie.”Clinton jokingly suggested the moniker during an appearance on “The Oprah Winfrey Show,” the Chicago Tribune reported Thursday.”My Scottish friends say I should be called ‘first laddie’ because it’s the closest thing to ‘first lady’,” he said.

The Executive Problem

In its way, this anecdote – culled from AN Wilson’s touching eulogy for the great Hugh Massingberd is a very telling illustration of how, regardless of technological changes, newspapers have got themselves into such a mess: Part of the secret of Hugh’s overwhelming charm was in his vulnerability. He played up the moments when he had been humiliated, and made jokes about them. But he also really did mind. Just when he thought the new obituaries page had got off to a flying start, a thrusting ‘exec’ on the Telegraph complained to him that there were too many heroic brigadiers with absurd nicknames, and moustachoied wing-commanders. ‘Why’, asked this person,

Clinton Derangement: 43rd St Edition

Reihan Salam, in characteristically excellent form, dismantles the New York Times’ lazy and baffling endorsement* of Hillary Clinton and, as a bonus, comes up with the best line I’ve read today: Clinton must sorely regret that she can’t use proxies to pointedly accuse Obama of fathering a black child — because, after all, he has two of them, and they are adorable. *As a veteran of comfy days writing editorials myself, might I also suggest that you could scarcely hope to find a better example than this of the stuffed-shirt pomposity that plagues the genre. The Times’ leader is simultaneously platitudinous, banal, witless and appallingly written. To wit, for instance:

Hugh Massingberd: Hall of Fame Journalist

Sad news. Hugh Massingberd, the man who did more to bring obituaries to life than anyone else, is dead. He qualifies as one of the great journalists of our age. My poor, old (not so old actually) and now dead Uncle David was one of his contributors and I recall answering the phone, aged 12 or so, during one of David’s rather extended stays at my parents’ house, to hear Mr Massingberd asking, politely, how the obituary of this or that not-yet-dead restaurateur*, wine merchant or horse trainer was progressing. “Fitfully” was the answer one learned to give, David being  incommunicado… And now the begetter is gone too. Sic transit

Lock up your daughters: the libertarian carnival is in town

Good lord. further evidence that, despite improvements in recent years, Washington still has work to do. Today’s WaPo runs a piece noting that the free minds and free markets crowd at Reason are insidiously recruiting innocent young Washingtonians to the libertarian cult by, yup, throwing a couple of parties a month. The horror! To wit: Four minutes into Reason magazine’s monthly bash at the Big Hunt lounge, and every Libertarian-as-Bacchus fantasy you’ve entertained plays out before your widening eyes. Nick Gillespie, the leather-jacketed, Mama-said-you’re-dangerous editor of the political rag peers at you intently. “What do you need?” he asks. “Do you need a drink? A cigarette?” Favourite bit, however? This:

Comparative advantage: fight writing edition

So, the New York Times has not even mentioned tonight’s Hatton-Mayweather fight, far less run a piece on it. Not even in a Sport in Brief column. Doubtless some people will argue that this confirms boxing’s eclipse; I’d suggest it’s evidence of the New York Times’ irrelevance. Sure, I’d also say that the Times is failing the average, casual sports fan (but then its sports section does that on a daily basis anyway, so why be surprised?) but that’s a question for the Times not me. But it’s not really a problem: Google News aggregates all the fight news you could hope for, including views from more than a dozen

Changes in Murdochland

The BBC’s excellent Nick Robinson speculates that Rupert Murdoch’s decision to hand control of his european interests to his son James is more bad news for Gordon Brown: the man formerly known as Britain’s most powerful tycoon was personally, if not always politically, sympathetic to the prime minister. Rupert Murdoch admires Gordon Brown’s personal morality and his commitment to hard work. What’s more, initially at least, Murdoch Senior was not taken with David Cameron. Not so the man we will now have to get used to calling Britain’s most powerful media tycoon. James Murdoch does not share his father’s admiration for Brown or scepticism about Cameron. What impact will this

Comment is free, facts are extremely expensive

I agree with Garance that there’s lots of interest in Bill Keller’s Hugo Young lecture. And like her I was struck by this passage: The New York Times has six correspondents assigned to Iraq, plus a rotating cast of photographers, plus Pentagon correspondents who regularly travel with the troops. We employ, in addition, about 80 brave Iraqis – many of them handpicked stringers based in towns that are no longer safe for westerners. Sustaining the Baghdad bureau costs several million dollars a year. We take extraordinary precautions to keep our people safe, but two of our Iraqi colleagues have been murdered in cold blood, almost certainly because they worked for

Death by Moron

While I’m at it, here’s more deranged idiocy from The Corner. A fellow named Peter Wehner, who until March 2007 apparently served as Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Strategic Initiatives, has this to say about The New Republic and the gruesome Scott Beauchamp affair: What The New Republic didn’t understand, and still seems unable to grasp, is that they and others saw this for what it was: an effort to use Beauchamp’s story to paint an ugly portrait of those serving in Iraq. The magazine had turned against the war, and this piece would help turn people against those serving in the war. What has happened instead

Obama’s Dangerous Love of Apple Pie

Yesterday the Washington Post published a page 1 story headlined: Foes Use Obama’s Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him I don’t think this was necessarily a reprehensible piece, even if it should have debunked this nonsense more prominently than it did. Any discussion of these smears – not that there should be anything wrong with being a muslim, of course – can’t help but give them the benefit of the oxygen of publicity, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be reported. Still, Tom Toles’ cartoon in today’s WaPo is mighty fine: [Hat tip: Jon Chait] UPDATE: I meant to say, of course, that this is one example of how

Correction of the Day

Definitely from the Department of Too Good to Check: CORRECTIVE: Paris Hilton Story                                                                   Tuesday, November 13, 2007 sfgate_get_fprefs(); (11-13) 15:44 PST    GAUHATI, India (AP) — In a Nov. 13 story, The Associated Press incorrectly reported that Paris Hilton was praised by conservationists for highlighting the problem of binge-drinking elephants in northeastern India. Lori Berk, a publicist for Hilton, said she never made any comments about helping drunken elephants in India. [Hat-Tip: The Agitator]                        

The End of the Days of Unread Copy

My pal Mike Crowley’s (good!) New Republic piece on Hillary’s tough press operation is drawing lots of attention from the blogosphere. It’s a reminder that the subject hacks and bloggers like best is, well, stories about hacks and bloggers. I daresay it’s doing wonders for TNR’s web traffic today. Which reminds me that this ability to see and measure what people are reading in real time is going to have an enormous impact on journalism in the future. I’m not sure people – readers and hacks alike – necessarily fully appreciate that yet. In the past newspaper management have relied upon focus groups and reader surveys to find out what

Alex Massie

Shocking news…

The most surprising headline of the day? Step forward the brave sub-editors at The New York Times  who produced this gem: In Interview, Musharraf Defends Rule by Decree Well, fancy that!  

Alex Massie

Will no-one rid us of Rupert Murdoch’s super-evil super-genius?

Rupert Murdoch reveals his plans to destroy the Wall Street Journal: News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch said Tuesday he intends to make access to The Wall Street Journal’s Web site free, trading subscription fees for anticipated ad revenue. “We are studying it and we expect to make that free, and instead of having one million (subscribers), having at least 10 million-15 million in every corner of the earth,” Murdoch said. Something must be done! Previous items on Murdoch here and here and here.

Sod You, Broon…

Ah, the tabloids… Bless them. Just when you think no newspaper can keep a healthier stable of high horses than the New York Times, Fleet Street reminds one that humbug and sanctimony are both alive and well in London. Gordon Brown just made his life more difficult. If he does renege upon Labour’s promise to hold a referendum upon the EU constitution treaty – even in its revised “non-treaty” form- he’s made an enemy of Britain’s best-selling paper, The Sun. Good. Here’s what The Sun says today: GORDON Brown last night took the fatal step of breaking his word to Sun readers. Over dinner with 26 other EU leaders, he

Hold the foreign page…

Matt Yglesias writes:              People often note that there appears to be a more vigorous debate over Israel’s approach to the Israeli-Arab conflict in the mainstream Israeli press than there is in the mainstream American press. This is, however, the kind of judgment that it’s hard for a casual American observer to make with much confidence. Writing in International Security, however, Jerome Slater takes a more systematic comparison of coverage of the conflict in The New York Times and in Haaretz and concludes that, indeed, Israelis debate this matter more freely. To which Megan responds: 1)  No one in Israel is worried about being called anti-semitic. 2)

The New British Invasion: Or, Thoughts on the Duty of Opposition, the Responsibility of Newspapers and Why the Netroots are Just Like the London Tabloids

Via the admirable Mr E, I find Matthew Parris offering some sound advice to the Tories. Parris, one of the most urbane journalists working in London, found himself making an argument he didn’t, on reflection, quite believe: Here was the wise argument: “David Cameron and his Conservative colleagues were entitled to their half-hour of fun at Prime Minister’s Questions, at Brown’s expense. They landed their punches. But they should not think this will serve as opposition policy for the next two years. ‘Hah-nah-nah’ does not add up to a manifesto, and the British electorate dislike knockabout. “After a deserved week of crowing, the Tories should now return to fleshing out