The Dodo is a new website by Kerry Lauerman (former Salon editor-in-chief) and Izzie Lerer (of the Lerer family) about animals, and particularly about humanity's relationship with animals: We think of them less as objects at our disposal, as science increasingly reveals them to be intelligent, emotional, social beings that are not as different from us as we used to think they were. Its lead article today is an essay by Glenn Greenwald (previously) on the dogs he and his partner David Miranda have fostered at their home in Brazil. And, as you might expect, there are also heartwarming posts such as this one about elephants being reunited after 20 years apart.
The 2013 edition of Salon's annual Hack List is out, and this year, Salon hackmaster Alex Pareene has stirred the pot of hackery by "channel[ing] each hack's unique voice" and "let[ting] them 'write' their own entries." [more inside]
Rollback. Media critic Jay Rosen rises above the McClellan/"shake-up" foofaraw to put several pieces of the puzzle together and show how the Bush administration has significantly altered the long-standing relationship of the press to the White House. (More from Rosen here.) Another piece that fits: Donald Rumsfeld's bold, frequent, and rarely-challenged assertions that the American press is being expertly "manipulated" by Al Qaeda "media committees" in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Newsweek-Fahrenheit wars - Michael Isikoff's "seven errors, distortions and selective omissions of crucial information" detailed by Craig Unger, "House of Bush, House of Saud" author (read excerpts of his book at Salon.com, for members or by a "day pass") Isikoff has heavily cited Unger's book but, it seems, not bothered to read Unger's generously provided source files. "Liberal" PBS is not excluded, as credulous (or ignorant) "On the Media" host Bob Garfield's July 2 interview with Isikoff demonstrates. What shall we call such pervasive, ongoing and seemingly willful patterns of inaccuracy, distortion, and selective omission?
"The Media vs. Howard Dean." Salon (subscription or Flash ad viewing required) observes that the media have been doing everything in their power to attach negative labels to US presidential candidate Howard Dean. Will the adage that "there's no such thing as bad publicity" prevail? Meanwhile, the Internet is increasing in relevance as a news source, according to a recent survey. Which websites do you peruse for political coverage, if any?
Sony writes 'article' for Salon. In an effort to find new revenue streams, Salon has published an ad/article written by Sony Corp. National Geographic and Parent Soup have also published ad/articles, though the New York Times said no. While the articles do not directly reference Sony products, the feature people who do fascinating things with technology... technology which, it just so happens, is advertised conveniently right next to the technology featuring passage. Is this sort of thing ever ethical? If so, what sort of disclosures are necessary. Clearly the ad/articles are intended to appear to be regular content.
Where Are The Hollywood Conservative? Does a liberal cabal of Hollywood executives destroy the careers of conservative performers? Or, is the conservative philosophy (opposed to change, antiquated morals...) just too boring for artists and performers?