Nation editor and publisher running CJR, but not on masthead

Imagine this scenario: A supposedly unbiased publication is being run by someone with a clear political bias, and that person is not listed on the publication's masthead. It's just the type of story that media watchdog Columbia Journalism Review would love to uncover.

Only in this case CJR is the perpetrator.

This blog has learned that Victor Navasky, publisher, editorial director and apparently co-owner of iconic left wing journal The Nation, is running CJR; however he is not on the masthead.

CJR executive editor Michael Hoyt said in a phone conversation today with this blog, "I think he should be on the masthead as soon as possible."

Commenting on Navasky's organizational role, Hoyt said, "I answer to him. But honestly, to date, he hasn't done much editorially. Most of his work has been on the business side." Hoyt said Navasky had been with CJR for a couple of months in an incrementally responsible role.

Reached by phone at his office at The Nation, Navasky confirmed for this blog that he was playing a role at CJR. He downplayed the role, stating, "I'm trying to help them out. I'm hoping to provide more editorial direction down the road, but I'm focused now on improving the finances. " He also stated that he had been "given the dean's green light to do what needed doing."

Commenting on why he is not on the masthead, Navasky said it is too soon since he is still working out precisely what his role will be.

Asked if he has been providing any editorial direction to CJR, Navasky said that he feels free to provide editorial direction to anyone he wants, including the New York Times or anyone else.

---------------------
Update: Welcome, Power Line readers. Welcome also to readers from Hugh Hewitt, Romenesko/Poynter and Editor & Publisher. Feel free to have a look around.

--------------------
Related posts on this site:

• Round-up of the Navasky/CJR story
  
• Nation editor and publisher running CJR, but not on masthead
• Media watchdog CJR succumbs to media watchdog blogosphere
• Inside blogging: evolution of the CJR story
• Thoughts on the CJR/Navasky kerfuffle
• Reader speaks out
  
• Brit Hume on Navasky
  
• The Examiner on CJR
  
• NY Sun covers Navasky story
  
• Mark Steyn speaks on Navasky and CJR

One desktop PC, ten strikes, Dell is out

Excuse me while I vent about my experience with Dell.

Dell sold me a defective computer, made it difficult to get it fixed (and eventually replaced), made it difficult to return the computer and as of today added insult to injury by suspending my warranty despite that I have tried to do everything Dell has asked of me.

For those interested in the gory details, read on.

Back in February I bought a brand new Dell desktop computer. Paid up for the most elite warranty service Dell had available -- the service where you don't have to wait on hold very long, and the repair guy comes out to your house if you can't work out the problem over the phone.

Within days of normal use, the computer stopped working. Strike one.

When I discovered the computer would not boot, I called tech support, all excited about plugging my service code into the automated system, for this would jump me to the front of the telephone queue. Only problem-- the system did not recognize my code, so I had to wait on hold for the better part of an hour. Strike two. Eventually got through to a tech who talked me through fixing my computer. Okay.

Next day, computer wouldn't boot again. Strike three. Called Dell again. Again waited on hold the better part of an hour since again the system did not recognize my code. Strike four. Tech was unable to fix the problem over the phone; said he'd schedule a visit to my home. Couple of days later, a tech came to my home. He needed parts. Send away to Dell for parts. Came back to my home. Still couldn't fix it. Sent away to Dell for more parts. Came back to my home. Still couldn't fix it. Eventually requested replacement computer. Meanwhile, each time I called Dell, I had to wait on hold forever because a system glitch meant that the system still didn't recognize my code. Strikes five through seven.

A week later the replacement computer showed up. No return mailing tags were with it, nor any indication of how to return it.

Eventually I received a letter from Dell saying I should return the computer with the mailing labels which were enclosed with the replacement. Since there were no mailing tags, I called the number on the letter. Left a message with all the details of the order and requested mailing label or other instructions. Heard nothing back from Dell for weeks. Strike eight.

Finally, last week, a Dell rep e-mailed me and wrote that she could arrange a pick-up even without the labels. So I arranged a pick-up with her for the afternoon of June 1.

Then today I received a letter from Dell suspending my warranty. Strike nine. Here's an excerpt:

We have sent you two reminders and attempted to contact you by way of telephone [Strike ten; see below.] concerning product not being returned to Dell Inc. Your account is now past due and per Dell's exchange policy your service tag(s) have been placed on hold. This hold will interrupt service and support on your current equipment and the warranty will not be transferred to the replacement product until the original product has been returned and received by Dell.

A few reactions:

• Contrary to the above note, nobody from Dell ever had a phone conversation with me (or left a telephone message) where return of my defective Dell was mentioned.
  
• I have, to my knowledge, done everything Dell asked. When Dell sent a letter asking for the machine to be returned, I called and told them I needed labels; and I did not hear back. Dell has suspended my warranty anyway.
• Within several hours of Dell telling me (last week via e-mail) how to ship the computer back, I made arrangements to do so. The Dell rep even wrote "Thank you for the prompt reply."
  

In a very competitive computer market, I'll chalk these ten strikes up as motivation to consider Gateway or IBM next time round, whether for my home or company.

Reusable versus disposable diapers

I've had the nagging feeling that my cousin in New England who uses primarily reusable diapers was more responsible than I, at least in the diaper issue. A new study, however, seems to assuage my sense of guilt:

[T]he London-based Environmental Agency concluded that disposable diapers have the same environmental impact as reusable diapers when the effect of laundering cloth diapers is taken into account.

"Opinion Survey of the Arab Street 2005"

This sounds like good news.

Instapundit quotes James Dunnigan of Strategy Page:

A recent "Opinion Survey of the Arab Street 2005" by Al Arabiya news network provides some interesting answers. The survey sought to see what Arabs thought about the relative lack of economic progress in the Arab world. In answer to the question, “What is stalling development in the Arab world?,” 81 percent chose "Governments are unwilling to implement change and reform", 8 percent citing "The ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict," 7 percent "Civil society is failing to convince governments", and 4 percent chose "Terrorism".

Another question, "What is the fastest way to achieve development in the Arab world?", had 67 percent choosing "Ensuring the rule of law through justice and law enforcement", 23 percent chose "Enhancing freedom of speech", and 10 percent chose "Resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict".

Islamic terrorists represent a small minority of Arab thinking, and interests. But most Arab media and governments, for obvious reasons, avoid the “bad government” issues and instead concentrate on the Arab-Israeli conflict as the cause of all that is bad in the Arab world.

Time's Matt Rees replies

Last Thursday I noted math problems in a Time magazine article. The article's author Matt Rees, Time's Jerusalem bureau chief, gracefully acknowledged the error via e-mail ("You're quite right"). He also took the opportunity to plug his book. I'm not holding my breath on a correction from Time. Here is Rees's note:

From: Matthew Rees
Sent: Sunday, May 29, 2005
To: David M
Subject: Re: Math error in recent Matt Rees article about Reuven Adler

Dear David,
You're quite right. Anyway, thanks also for putting the link up to my bio on the website for my book "Cain's Field." Despite my math failings, I can tell you that on amazon.com the book retails for $17.16, a savings of $8.84 on the $26.00 cover price. From a read of your blog, I'd say you'd like the book, which has a take on the Middle East that's quite different from the U.S. media. If you'd like to discuss the book further, please let me know. 73s (means "regards" as we used to write on the wires in the days of telex), Matt

I've been critical of some of Time's Middle East coverage in the past. I'm a bit skeptical about Rees' claim that I'd like his new book, Cain's Field: Faith, Fratricide, and Fear in the Middle East, but I'm willing to give it a try.

Fallen heroes

This Memorial Day if you are looking for a way to pay tribute to those who have sacrificed for our nation, consider a gift to the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund.

Quote of the day

Galen's Log:

Never attribute to corporate malice what can be explained by poorly thought out regulation.

From the President's address at Naval Academy Commencement:

Today, I'm going to talk about our strategy for victory in this war, what we've accomplished to make our nation more secure, your crucial role in this struggle, and why we need you to fight the war on terror and transform our military at the same time. In the 21st century, America will be prepared to answer any challenge, and defeat any adversary.

Our nation is pursuing a clear strategy for the war on terror: We're using every available tool to disrupt terrorists and their organizations. We are taking the fight to the enemy abroad so we do not have to face them here at home. (Applause.) We're denying the terrorists sanctuary, and making clear that America will not tolerate outlaw regimes that provide safe haven and support to terrorists. We're using all elements of national power to deny terrorists the chemical, biological and nuclear weapons they seek. We will not allow mass murderers to gain access to the tools of mass destruction. And we're stopping terrorists from achieving their ideological victories they seek, by working to spread the hope of freedom and reform across the broader Middle East. We understand that free nations do not support terrorists or invade their neighbors. We understand to make the world more peaceful and our country more secure, we will advance the cause of liberty. (Applause.)

Thanks to the men and women of the United States military, our strategy is working -- we are winning the war on terror. Since September 11, 2001, we've removed brutal regimes in Kabul and Baghdad that supported and harbored terrorists. We helped launch Afghanistan and Iraq on the path to lasting freedom by liberating over 50 million people. (Applause.) Both these nations have now chosen their leaders in free elections, and their courage is inspiring democratic reformers across the broader Middle East to rise up and claim their liberty.

To stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction, we broke up the world's most dangerous nuclear trading network. We convinced Libya's leader to give up his country's chemical and nuclear weapons programs, as well as his long-range ballistic missiles. Two years ago, we launched the Proliferation Security Initiative, an effort supported by 60 nations to stop shipments of weapons of mass destruction on land, at sea, and in the air. We have gone after al Qaeda and other terrorists with relentless determination, disrupting their communications, planning, training, and financing. We have put the enemy on the run, and now they spend their days avoiding capture, because they know America's Armed Services are on their trail. (Applause.)

And we will stay on their trail. The best way to protect our citizens is to stay on the offensive. In the last few weeks, we've dealt the enemy a series of powerful blows. In Afghanistan, we brought to justice scores of terrorists and insurgents. In Pakistan, one of Osama Bin Laden's senior terrorist leaders, a man named al-Libbi, was brought to justice. In Iraq, we captured two senior operatives of the terrorist Zarqawi. And in recent days, our forces have killed or captured hundreds of terrorists and insurgents in Baghdad and Western Iraq and near the Syrian border. Across the world, our military is standing directly between the American people and the worst dangers in the world, and Americans are grateful to have such brave defenders. (Applause.)

Difficult and dangerous work remains. Suicide bombers in Iraq are targeting innocent men, women and children, hoping to intimidate Iraq's new leaders, and shake the will of the Iraqi people. They will fail. Iraqis are determined, and our strategy is clear: We will train Iraqi forces so they can take the fight to the enemy and defend their own country, and then our troops will come home with the honor they have earned. (Applause.)

Neolibertarianism

These folks may be on to something:

Pragmatic domestic libertarian; strong on defense.

I could support that.

Innumeracy at Time

Another example of bad math in big-time media. It's not a major blunder, but it does create reason to worry about the math skills at Time magazine.

In a recent Time profile of Ariel Sharon's campaign advisor, a reporter wrote,

Sharon, Adler calculated, was too far to the right on the political spectrum to gain broad support. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 representing the extreme left wing and 5 the far right, Adler figured, Sharon was a 4.7. The winner of every previous election had been a little right of center, Adler judged--somewhere from 2.6 to 3.2.

Note that the midpoint of this scale should be 3, so, per Adler's judgment, prior winners were not "a little right of center" as the article states. Here is a simple chart I created to illustrate the point:

The author's point (that Sharon was relatively far right) would have been stronger had he correctly stated that Adler deemed all prior winners to be centrist with a slight tendency to the left.

Presumably the author incorrectly calculated the midpoint as 2.5 by dividing 5 by 2. Where was the editor?

Update: The article's author is Time's Jerusalem bureau chief Matt Rees (bio here). I'll drop a note to Rees and to Time about this post. I'll let you know if I hear back.

Update: Matt Rees replies: "You're quite right."

Handicapping the 2008 Democratic nominee race

Here, from tradesports.com, are the odds for possible Democratic nominees for the 2008 presidential elections. The number after each name represents the latest price (as of 2:10 p.m. eastern time today) paid for a contract which ultimately pays $100 if that person becomes the 2008 presidential nominee from the Republican[oops!] Democratic party.

• Hillary Clinton, $43.70
• Mark Warner, $10.20
• Evan Bayh, $9.30
• John Edwards, $7.00
• Al Gore, $6.00
• John Kerry, $6.00
• Bill Richardson, $3.70
• Joe Biden, $3.00
• Jon Corzine, $2.60
• Phil Breseden [sic], $2.10
• Howard Dean, $1.30
• Tom Vilsack, $1.20
• Barack Obama, $1.00
• Ed Rendell , $1.00
• Colin Powell, $0.30
• Wesley Clark, $0.20
• Chris Dodd, $0.20
• Russ Feingold, $0.20
• Harold Ford, $0.20
• Pat Leahy, $0.20
• Joseph Lieberman, $0.10

Hillary Clinton's dominance over the rest of the field seems right to me in terms of likelihood of being nominated, if not in terms of fitness for the presidency.

Note that Colin Powell is the 15th most likely Democratic nominee and the 11th most likely Republican nominee. (See the Republican list here.)

Note that Instapundit's musings about his governor have not quite launched Bredesen into front runnership, or even into we know how to spell his name turf.

Handicapping the 2008 Republican nominee race

Here, from tradesports.com, are the odds for possible Republican nominees for the 2008 presidential elections. The number after each name represents the latest price (as of noon eastern time today) paid for a contract which ultimately pays $100 if that person becomes the 2008 presidential nominee from the Republican party.

• George Allen, $19.30
• John McCain, $17.80
• Bill Frist, $14.00
• Rudy Giuliani, $10.80
• Jeb Bush, $7.70
• Mitt Romney, $6.40
• Condoleezza Rice, $5.00
• Chuck Hagel, $4.80
• Richard B Cheney, $3.00
• George Pataki, $2.90
• Colin Powell, $2.50
• Bill Owens, $2.50
• Newt Gingrich, $1.20
• Rick Santorum, $1.10
• Tommy Thompson, $1.00
• Mark Sanford, $1.00
• Arnold Schwarzenegger, $0.70
• Haley Barbour, $0.70
• Sam Brownback, $0.50
• Tim Pawlenty, $0.50
• Tom Ridge, $0.20
• Michael Bloomberg, $0.20
• Lindsey Graham, $0.20
• Elizabeth Dole, $0.20
• Tommy Franks, $0.10

Jeb looks a tad underpriced, Rudy a tad overpriced.

Update: See the Democratic list here.

Pickering talks

Charles Pickering is well-qualified to have a point of view on the process of confirming judicial nominees.

(Remember Pickering? He's the federal judge who stepped aside last year rather than endure a second set of Senate hearings where he would be subject to unfounded charges of racism and the like. This was part of his statement at the time:

The bitter fight over judicial confirmations threatens the quality and the independence of the judiciary. The mean-spiritedness and lack of civility reduces the pool of nominees willing to offer themselves for service on the bench.

He was right.)

Here he is on Hannity & Colmes last night (link via via RCP) making mincemeat of the charges against him (dutifully parroted by Alan Colmes):

COLMES: You were accused of writing a paper against miscegenation, and when asked in 1990 about the article, you said you had no opinion about — at the time whether interracial marriage should be illegal.

Is that mainstream?

PICKERING: Alan, I told the Senate in 1990, and I told them again in 2001 when I was before them, that I thought who one married was a personal choice, and that I did not believe that laws outlawing interracial marriage were appropriate, that they were unconstitutional. And the Supreme Court said the same.

Here, you're going back and taking things out of context, just as they did. Listen, I had a record in 1967. When the Ku Klux Klan was bombing, burning and shooting into homes, I testified against the imperial wizard, the white knight of the Ku Klux Klan.

I sent my children to integrated schools, 70 percent integrated schools. Mike Wallace on "60 Minutes" saw the hypocrisy of what they were doing to me, and "60 Minutes" had a great program showing that the charges you're talking about were bogus charges.

You know, you can paint and tar anybody if you want to take a few statements out of opinions they've written and distort them and mischaracterize them. And that's what happened.

...That's what happened to these nominees as well.

Republicans and the black vote

I wonder if Rob Paulsson is right:

It is a matter of when, not if, the Democrats' share of black votes will fall...

He's got much more.

If it makes Republicans look bad, it must be true

ABC News is caught rewriting history.

(Via Newmark's Door.)

Tax misery index

The most compelling reason I've seen to move to the UAE: tax-wise it is the least "miserable" of some 50 nations surveyed.

Also the most compelling reason to move from France: tax-wise, it's the most miserable of the surveyed nations. (Well, okay, this is only one of a number of good reasons to move from France.)

(Hat tip: Newmark's Door, which calls the index "kinda cute," though "not to be taken completely seriously.")

Kerry signs SF-180

Apparently Kerry has signed his SF-180 form, so his military records may soon be public. And I have removed the SF-180 clock from the top of this blog.

Kerry has not yet sent the signed forms to the proper authorities, but presumably he will. And it is unclear if the records will be released to the general public or only to Kerry.

Politically I suspect this is a wise move for Kerry. Releasing the records now when the public's attention is elsewhere is less harmful to Kerry than releasing them under pressure in the heat of a campaign.

Update: Turns out Kerry may have not released all his military records

Blog plagiarism (blogiarism) again

Last fall I stumbled on a couple of blogs which were rip-offs of other people's work. One (described here) quickly dissolved. The other (described here) did not. What both blogs had in common was shamelessly copying Betsy's Page without attribution. (Well, at least they had the taste to copy a first-rate blog.)

Today I decided to revisit the second--and less grevious--of the offenders: Lago in the morning. Old habits die hard. Seems Mr. Lago is still taking Betsy's work and still giving her no credit. Here are four examples from Lago today:

• Sample 1. Note that Lago faithfully copies even Betsy's capitalization typo:
  

  Lago today: "NRO blog - Bench Memos, reminds us that, in 1995, the Democrats actually tried to get rid of the filibuster altogether. THe [sic] author, Sean Rushton, also notes the limits that the Senate has already put on use of the filibuster."
  
  Betsy today: "...NRO blog, Bench Memos, reminds us that, in 1995, the Democrats actually tried to get rid of the filibuster altogether. THe [sic] author, Sean Rushton, also notes the limits that the Senate has already put on use of the filibuster."

• Sample 2. This time Lago moves the last sentence to the front, but the words are strictly stolen:

  Lago today: "Ain't technology grand - Eugene Volokh has some wise things to say about the question, which is better: blogs or the mainstream media? We're not going to have one or the other. The media serves its purpose. Bloggers enhance readers' understanding of the news."
  
  Betsy today: "Eugene Volokh has some wise things to say about the question, which is better: blogs or the mainstream media?... We're not going to have one or the other. The media serves its purpose. Bloggers enhance readers' understanding of the news... Ain't technology grand?"

• Sample 3. This one too is a verbatim rip-off, except that Lago chooses to omit the best part, Betsy's Jabberwocky reference in the first line.

  Lago today: "ABZ's - Spelling is making a comeback.
  
  "Mrs. Guerra offers daily spelling instruction, a sign of the subject's comeback after several decades of neglect. While schools still vary greatly in their approaches to spelling, a growing emphasis on basic skills in US classrooms has prompted more teachers to return to explicit spelling instruction - instead of simply assuming that it's a skill that kids will pick up as they go along."
  
  Betsy today: "Oh, Frabjous Day! Spelling is making a comeback.
  
  "Mrs. Guerra offers daily spelling instruction, a sign of the subject's comeback after several decades of neglect. While schools still vary greatly in their approaches to spelling, a growing emphasis on basic skills in US classrooms has prompted more teachers to return to explicit spelling instruction - instead of simply assuming that it's a skill that kids will pick up as they go along."

• Sample 4. Another one where Lago copies even a typo from Betsy:

  Lago today: "...Demcrats [sic] won't be able to block Bolton's nomination"
  
  Betsy today: "...Demcrats [sic] won't be able to block Bolton's nomination..."

I've now examined Lago's site on two days: today and last December 10. On both days, he shamelessly took Betsy's work without attribution. I'd venture a guess that he's done it other times as well.

Lago appears to be the host of a morning program on a right-leaning radio station. I do not know if he or his staff writes the blog.

I've considered and discounted several possible explanations:

• Perhaps Betsy is plagiarizing Lago, not the other way around. Not so, since on one occasion I e-mailed Betsy a link to an entry on my blog, she posted the link, and some time later Lago posted the same item.
• Perhaps Lago has permission from Betsy to use her work. I doubt it.
• Perhaps Lago gives Betsy's blog lots of credit on his radio show. Unlikely. And even if true, not a valid reason to refrain from crediting her on-line.

I'll e-mail Lago a copy of this post to see if he has any explanation. If he responds, I'll let you know. (I'm not holding my breath; when I e-mailed Lago my last post on the topic of his using Betsy's work, I never heard back.)

Update: Betsy writes an entry that I don't suppose Lago will rip off:

... Gosh, how lame. What is the point of blogging if you're just plagiarizing? The whole idea is to express your own thoughts or link to those who are expressing things you agree or disagree with. Why go to all the trouble to plagiarize someone else's thoughts and links? In high school, I would flunk students who just lifted something from the Internet and posted it into their paper. But blogs aren't term papers. You don't have to do one. And giving credit is so easy on a blog. You just put up the link. For shame, but thanks to David M. for his own research.

Where have standards gone. First, they plagiarize high school papers. Then blogs. What's next? Harvard Law School?

Great minds

A round-up of commentators (from the right) who have appropriately blamed the recent mayhem and death on Islamic fanatics rather than on Newsweek:

• Andrew McCarthy, in a May 17 column (via K-Lo):

  The reason for the carnage here was, and is, militant Islam. Nothing more.

• David M, in a May 17 blog post:

  Newsweek practiced poor journalism, but radical Islamists--not Newsweek journalists--are responsible for the pursuant death and mayhem.

• David Brooks, in a May 19 column:

  Maybe we should all focus on what's important. Newsweek's little item was seized and exploited by America's enemies in a way that was characteristically cynical, delusional and fascistic.

Update:

• Jonah Goldberg, in a May 20 column (via Betsy):

  Look, birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim, and jihadi nutbags have to riot. Such is the nature of things. Normally, conservatives grasp this - but that's when the riots are inadvertently caused by something President Bush does or says. When Newsweek accidentally causes riots, the "gotcha" logic kicks in.

• Jeff Jacoby, in a May 20 column (via Betsy):

  The Muslim riots should have been met by an international upwelling of outrage and condemnation. From every part of the civilized world should have come denunciations of those who would react to the supposed destruction of a book with brutal threats and the slaughter of 17 innocent people. But the chorus of condemnation was directed not at the killers and the fanatics who incited them, but at Newsweek.

Inside blogging: Reynolds and Sullivan

Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds finds Andrew Sullivan to be of decreasing relevance:

But, I confess, I find the question of what Andrew thinks less pressing than I used to.

Apparently each finds the other to be emphasizing the wrong topics, particularly in blogging on the War on Terror. Generally I side with Reynolds.

Perspective on Newsweek and rioting

Yes, Newsweek messed up. Yes, the journalism was poor and the editorial oversight was worse. And yes, people died.

Yes, the mainstream media tend to be ideologically if unwittingly liberal. Yes, the mainstream media tend to be innately hostile to President Bush, his policies and the American military.

But let us not lose perspective. As Andrew McCarthy has written,

The reason for the carnage here was, and is, militant Islam. Nothing more.

McCarthy is right. Newsweek practiced poor journalism, but radical Islamists--not Newsweek journalists--are responsible for the pursuant death and mayhem.

After 9/11, some pundits distastefully and inaccurately tried to blame the atrocities on American behavior and policy: What did we do that made those people mad, and how can we stop doing it in the future? Those pundits were wrong.

Those who put the blame for the recent deaths on Newsweek are just as wrong.

The issues are separate in fact and in import: To the degree that Newsweek is broken, it must be fixed in the interests of good journalism and a properly informed public. To the degree that Islamist extremism is causing death and mayhem, it must be eliminated in the interests of national and global security.

Want to read this page in French?

French translation is here.

Or try Spanish, German or Italian.

The power of Google.

Front pages 2

In the post immediately below, I comment on the New York Times and Wall Street Journal coincidentally running very similar sports/human interest stories on their front pages today.

In another coincidence, neither the Times nor the Journal ran a front page story on the trial of Clinton's former campaign finance director today. But at least they had good reason:

"It's just not newsworthy," the unnamed pollster said. "It's nothing but a former First Lady who won a Senate seat with the help of a fundraising team which misstated expenses by more than 100 percent in order to dodge campaign finance laws, and worked with a former convict to produce a lavish star-studded Hollywood gala in tribute to President Bill Clinton as a way of getting the former president to support an internet venture started by the creator of Spider-Man. See, I almost dozed off while describing it to you. No wonder it fails to capture the attention of Mr. and Mrs. America."

Front pages

The two most respected nationally circulated newspapers in the country publish front page articles on the jersey numbers of professional athletes on the same day? Bizarre.

Here is the front page headline in today's New York Times:

What Is a Number Worth? Some Athletes Pay the Price

And here is the front page headline in today's Wall Street Journal:

One Through Nine Are Loneliest Numbers For Pitchers in Majors:
In Quirk of Baseball History, They Wear Double Digits; Rob Bell Gives Back No. 6

(I would have given you the first sentences, too, but I didn't know whether to label them leads or ledes.)

Earning a living blogging?

Glenn Reynolds' TCS column today ("Are Blogs Busting Loose?") states,

But things have reached the point at which it's not now possible to earn as much by blogging as one can earn in many entry-level journalism jobs...

First, a typo: I presume the above excerpt is supposed to read it's possible or perhaps it's not impossible. [Since corrected.]

It may be true that some bloggers can earn as much blogging as some entry-level journalists, but is it relevant?

Only a few bloggers at the top of the pyramid can earn that much from blogging, and most of those bloggers would not be content with a job as a cub reporter. TTLB's ecosystem lists only 37 blogs with at least 10,000 daily hits (and some of those blogs are counted twice). I'm skeptical that one could you a living off a blog with fewer than 10,000 daily hits.

A teacher on teachers' unions

A several-time winner of the Time Warner Cable Annual National Teacher Award writes,

I'm usually for anything that upsets the teachers' unions.

Sounds like a reaonable rule of thumb.