The Campaign Desk

January 31, 2004 12:55 PM

The Campaign Desk If you are a political news junkie, try this: Critique and analysis of 2004 campaign coverage from Columbia Journalism Review It is good. It is solid.It is intelligent.
posted by Postroad (8 comments total)

The comments on "weapons of mass destruction program-related activities" are well-taken. I am surprised to learn that one of the few people to ask "what the fuck is that?" was Jon Stewart on the Daily Show.
posted by Slagman at 3:27 PM on January 31, 2004

Yeah the Jon Stewart thing was great, especially when he went on to something like "What the fuck is that? If Bush had called it that in the first place we never would have invaded... oh... clever Mr. Bush." I forget the exact wording...
posted by bobo123 at 4:51 PM on January 31, 2004

Thanks for this, Postroad!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 6:46 PM on January 31, 2004

The entry on Tom Brokaw's gaffes during the South Carolina debate is quite interesting, but oddly it fails to mention what seemed to me his strangest gaffe: several times, both in the preview before a commercial break and in a question to Al Sharpton, Brokaw asked about America's attitude towards the "Nation of Islam"; as Sharpton pointed out to him, he meant to be asking about the Islamic nations of the world, not about the African American organization headed by Minister Louis Farrakhan.
posted by Rebis at 7:12 PM on January 31, 2004

Thanks, Postroad. This reminds me to promote CJR - from my "interesting" to my "must read" category.

CJR is like a more clinical version of MWO (Media Whores Online) - a painfull chronicle, for the fact that every other one of it's stories is worthy of a contentious Metafilter post on mass media amok.

The mass media are whores, though I dislike using that word. What's a male whore ? - We need a new word for media whoredom!
posted by troutfishing at 1:28 AM on February 1, 2004

I've been following this site since its inception and this is one great weblog. Coming from CJR gives it credibility and our crony corporate media whores, especially those with the RNC talking points, are sooooo busted.
posted by nofundy at 11:24 AM on February 1, 2004

troutfishing: I think it's gigolo, but I'm not entirely sure that "media gigolos" (gigoli? gigoloen?) is any better than "media whores."

And nofundy, I'm with you: this has been on my daily consumption list for a few weeks now. Fantastic, well-balanced media criticism is hard to come by nowadays.

By the way, has anyone else noticed that the Daily Show is now billing itself as a "news organization?" Still one "with no credibility," but it's not "fake" anymore. A long way from Jon Stewart yelling at people not to get their news from his show and "More people get their news from the Daily Show than probably should."
posted by thecaddy at 12:52 PM on February 1, 2004

thecaddy - I know, but the word "gigolo" is far less derogatory than the word "whore", and so I don't think the two words are quite comparable. What's to be done ? - I don't have a clue.
posted by troutfishing at 7:28 PM on February 1, 2004