It seems the former anchor is preparing to sue his former station, NBC10, in addition to his former co-anchor Lori Delgado, the GM and a security officer named "Don."

This happened on the same day that Delgado announced her resignation from NBC10.

Apparently, the suit claims the defendants committed libel and slander. Not sure where this came from.

And, DeMentri's attorney is the infamous Paul Rosen -- the same one representing Lane in her suit.

It never ends... Unfortunately. I miss credibility.

As Nesta points out below, the Australian team is more settled than its Indian opponents, but The Tooting Trumpet will be setting his alarm clock very early in expectation of this XI taking to the field to represent the world's second most populous country.

Virender Sehwag - Having played just one Test in 2007, the opener with a strike rate of nearly 80 (Matthew Hayden is no slouch, but would score fifty runs fewer than Sehwag in a hypothetical day's play) is now deep into his second coming. He is still as likely to go for a handful as a barrelful, but once set and wearing a face of serenity between overs, he can score very big indeed, even if all around him are floundering, thus setting up unlikely wins. Has scored both a double hundred and a triple hundred at better than a run a ball - with the old men down the order, his weight of runs and rate of scoring is vital to the cause.

Gautam Gambhir - Latest no-longer-young player to be given the opener's slot opposite Viru. His stop-start international career is summed up by his recent series in Sri Lanka where he didn't fail, but didn't actually succeed either. Lee, Clark and Johnson will provide a searching examination of his technique against the new ball.

Rahul Dravid - The Wall is now honoured with A Wall, which is the kind of tribute that should really come in retirement, rather then when still an active player. Given that Dravid's average over the last two years has been just 36, some would argue that he is in semi-retirement anyway. Probably has one big innings left in him, but India will need three at least from their ex-skipper, and at a better rate than he has become accustomed to.

Sachin Tendulkar - Just a few whispers of discontent gathering around the Little Master's ankles after a poor series in Sri Lanka. Those keeping the faith will point to two 150s earlier this year in Australia as a truer indication of the man's talent. Needs 77 runs to go past BC Lara's all-time Test runs record and prompt celebrations across the sub-continent.

Sourav Ganguly - The third ex-skipper in the order will retire at the end of the series (but don't be too surprised to see him back in 2009) and may be looking forward to a Waughesque farewell tour. Take out his return to form in 2007, and he has just one century since 2003. The Aussies might want to keep him at the crease in the hope that he runs his partners out. Owes India some scores and might just have the motivation to deliver. Will need to bowl a few skidders and will certainly need to field with 100% concentration.

VVS Laxman - As everyone knows, VVS is at his sublime best against Australia. When the mood is on him, he uses his balance and wrists to pierce the field at will and can demoralise even the most resilient of bowling attacks. Early on, Aus will look to bowl full just outside off stump, as his feet can be stuck in the crease in the first hour. Is scheduled to win his 100^th cap in the Nagpur Test.

MS Dhoni - India's darling: the man who held up the World Twenty20 trophy just over a year ago. Not the greatest gloveman, without a Test century since January 2006 and having sat out the last series in Sri Lanka, Dhoni should feel under pressure, but he doesn't. That's partly because of his nature, but mainly because no selector can touch Dhoni in the foreseeable future. This is not a good thing for India, nor Dhoni.

Anil Kumble - The Captain has a bit to prove after his poorest year since debut in 1990. He would never admit it, but Test captaincy in this day and age might not suit this quiet, reflective man. Some runs at Number Eight will be very welcome too.

Harbhajan Singh - Australia brings out the best and worst of Harbhajan, who is still only 28 (that's years old, not IQ). Aus batsmen are likely to go hard at him to unsettle him early, avoiding his developing a rhythm within which he can produce his variations. Might need to bat properly instead of slogging at Number Nine.

Zaheer Khan - His experience will probably see him get the nod over fellow lefty RP Singh. Will need to show the control he used to great effect in England in 2007 from both over and round the wicket if he is to avoid a pounding at the hands of Hayden and Hussey. If it swings, he can clean up tails very quickly.

Ishant Sharma - Height, pace and fitness should see this twenty-year-old protégé get the nod over Munaf Patel. Is learning the game in an unforgiving environment, but has an action and wrist position that reminds The Trumpet of the young Jason Gillespie. If he can keep his line right, he could be a handful with the new ball.

So, there they are. Possibly the most experienced middle order ever to take the field, but certainly the weakest fielding unit in world cricket today. Much depends on the batsman racking up sufficient runs quickly enough to allow the bowlers to find a bit of form. The Trumpet forecasts a triumphant retirement for Sourav / 100^th cap for VVS party in Nagpur as India run out 2-1 victors in a tight series.

I'm sure this has been said before, but reading Romenesko today and thinking about campaign coverage added a certain clarity about why this is such a stupid old debate within journalism. It's like saying you can only give a 3-year-old a heavily iced sugar cookie with sprinkles or you can give them a hard, dry rye cracker. Like there's no middle ground, and with rather offensive paternalistic eye toward readers and viewers.

It's no surprise this debate is really only interesting to people of newspapers and TV stations, considering they're the ones most often stuck in outdated modes of thought about news and the people who consume it. Reference to Edward R. Murrow's speech 50 years ago (popularized in "Good Night and Good Luck") always comes up in such debates, totally ignoring the fact that people can't count TV channels on one hand anymore and can choose whatever media they want to consume anyway.

These days, our job as journalists is to present the "important" news (because it is important) in the most interesting and palatable way possible. We need to make cookies with whole grain flour. People don't have an aversion to "important" news because it's boring, but because it's dense and they don't have the context or time to understand it. We have so many tools now to make news accessible and interesting. We have words, photos, charts, graphs, maps and videos in any combination we like. We have Flash! People are naturally curious and news is inherently interesting or it wouldn't be news. At this point, it's the journalists who are completely at fault for news readers find boring.

We also need to get over the idea that "fluffy" news is bad. It's no longer competing with "important" news for valuable broadcast minutes or print inches, so who cares? People want it and it makes their lives and conversations richer. I think we all get this. I just wanted to say it.

This Wall Street Journal headline and sub-head says it all: "Independent Voters Move Toward Obama; New Poll Indicates That Democrat Ticket Is Benefiting From Financial Crisis" (link)

People ought to get out of their cocoons a little bit more. They'd learn lots of valuable things, interesting things, like how Barack Obama used to sue banks on behalf of ACORN, for not making dumb mortgage loans to people who can't afford to pay them.

I'm no expert on financial matters, but from what I've read, here is the Reader's Digest version of what happened.

Obama was part of the machinery that helped create this mess, by using legal blackmail sanctioned by government edict and regulators, to encourage banks to take risks with their money that they wouldn't otherwise take. Even the Fed issued new regulations, including this dumb-as-a-post policy: “discrimination may be observed when a lender’s underwriting policies contain arbitrary or outdated criteria that effectively disqualify many urban or lower–income minority applicants.” These resulted in "ninja" loans: no income, no job, no assets. Hahahaha, oh that's so ... not funny.

But the lenders knew they could unload these bad mortgages onto Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; you know, the same Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that Barney Frank (and other politicians who were on their payroll) said were just fine, right up until they crashed. Guess who else got lots of their cash? Barack. Obama. The same Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that were run by corrupt hooligans that then hooked up with the Obama campaign: Jim Johnson and Franklin Raines. Boy, what a coincidence!

So all this cash flowing into this market pushed up demand, and therefore artificially raised housing prices. This is, as economist Thomas Sowell explains so well, what always happens when government subsidies affect economic markets. And when that government money flow disappears, for whatever reason, the prices fall, and people who bought when it was high get burned. Whatever you want to call this, it is not a free market, so you can't blame all the fallout from it on "free markets".

Then a couple of years ago, some homeowners started defaulting; this caused the mortgage market to tighten up as well, which then brought prices down, and boom, the bubble of artificially high housing prices burst. People were now underwater on their mortgages, and since interest rates had risen as well, they couldn't pay and they couldn't sell. Housing crisis.

Then various financial market troubles ensued, caused by not just the mortgages themselves, but also by complicated financial derivative instruments that were based on the value of some of these mortgages. Lather, rinse, repeat. It bubbled up to stock prices, and now there is little confidence in the entire financial sector, and the Dow is down 13% in 3 days.

Accounting regulations introduced by Sarbannes-Oxley enforced a very aggressive devaluing of these instruments, to the point where even though their value had fallen by say 20 or 30%, they were required to be valued at just about zero.

And so here we are.

So let's have a frank talk, for a minute. This was a goofy social redistribution theory spawned by economic dipsticks who pretended that real risks, like lack of income and lack of credit history, can be safely ignored as long as your motives are pure enough, and/or the money loaned out is ultimately not yours in the first place.

Yet Obama now plays ignorant, and says Bush and his "failed policies" alone caused the current financial mess. Even though there is zero evidence that Bush had anything to do with any of it. And what evidence there is says he tried to fix the scams that were going on at Fannie and Freddie, in 2003, but brave Congressmen like Barney Frank -- say, what is he, a Dem, right? -- with one hand out for money and the other hand, well, just you never mind where that other hand was, but brave Congressmen like him prevented it. Thanks for that.

Also, it's funny how little interest the media has in this whole back story. But hey, lookee here ... we are being lied to on a consistent basis by the media, too!

Lies of omission are just flying all over the place.

You'd almost think the media wants Obama to win, and is actively covering up stories that are actually provably, demonstrably, historically true.

But the press is too busy going thru dumpsters in Alaska and Arizona to write a basic story, like the above, that just assembles facts already in the public record.

Too busy ... going thru dumpsters ... to write a simple story ... that assembles known facts ... in a non-partisan manner.

I'm not sure how you spin this except in the most obvious way: the media doesn't want their candidate to lose. And who can blame them? We all want our candidates to win. That's how partisan politics works.

So I guess it's good to know that the media is now officially part of the Obama campaign, dirty tricks department. They could call themselves the plumbers ...oops, that name is already taken. Oh, the irony!

If folks want to vote for Obama because they think he'd fix any of this mess, they might want to think again. Frankly, all of Congress is part of the problem, but Obama and his pals are at the head of the line of guys with their hands out.

He's part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Maybe I was overreacting or there was a draft in the room, but I got goosebumps the first time I watched this.  You should seriously watch it. I can't embed it, but here's the link. There's a second flash video called Epic 2015, an updated version. Tell me what you think!

In what he billed as "The Daily Racism Debate," Ambinder chided Barney Frank for having the temerity to suggest that the GOP and its allies might have had a racist edge when they blamed lending under the Community Reinvestment Act for the collapse in the housing market, and hence for the global financial crisis that we now endure.

Here's what Frank said:

"They get to take things out on poor people," Frank said at a mortgage foreclosure symposium in Boston. "Let's be honest: The fact that some of the poor people are black doesn't hurt them either, from their standpoint. This is an effort, I believe, to appeal to a kind of anger in people."

Here's Ambinder's considered take on this apparently offensive statement, fisked lightly:

Had it not been for the Community Reinvestment Act and the cheap mortgages provided by Fannie and Freddie, a lot of poor, black people wouldn't have homes.

Quick sleight of hand notice here:  Freddie and Fannie got Bush administration to meet affordable housing goals by buying up subprime mortgages; far from being a consequence of CRA rules, the two F's exposure to the riskiest class of loans was increased as a part of mendacious and incompetent administration's attempt to avoid the messy business of housing the poor.

But a lot of poor white people wouldn't have homes either. So it's classist, more than racist, if it', indeed, is motivated by prejudice at all.

This is, of course exactly what Frank said:  see above.  He noted that the fact that some poor people are black is a feature, not a bug, for a campaign now increasingly obviously playing the "not-like-us" card to a crowd primed to react to the blast of the race dog whistle.

At the same time, it might speak to the recklessness of Democratic policies, well intentioned or not.

Well it would, if the policies were in fact reckless; i.e. -- a significant contributor to the financial crisis.  Except, of course, they were not, at least when grown-ups minded the store.  See below for more on this.

Many of people can't afford their mortgages, and the entire country is paying a price.  Hence the anger, which crosscuts with latent racial/culture biases.

Yes, fine:  but why do all these people have mortgages that they cannot afford?  Well Irvine Renter can give you chapter and verse on the incentive structure that led some people through folly and or deceit to borrow way beyond their means.

But if you look for the underlying cause of the mortgage and financial meltdowns, don't you think the decision to remove most regulation of the banking sector might have something to do with it?  How about the creation of an even more lightly regulated pseudo-banking industry?  And what about the decision  -- written into law by McCain advisor and potential Treasury Secretary Phil Gramm --  to leave more or less wholly uncontrolled the trillions of dollars in the kind of derivative financial instruments Warren Buffet has more than once warned were "time bombs, both for the parties that deal in them and the economic system."

(This particular quote comes from the 2002 Berkshire Hathaway Chairman's letter to shareholders.  2002!  That would be GOP controlled White House and, after Nov. both houses of Congress 2002, in case you were wondering.  This disaster was not a surprise to those paying attention).

Ambinder's fellow Atlantic blogger, Ta-Nehisi Coates, has written several posts on the leap on the right to what he calls, rightly, the "Blame the Negroes" escape hatch, well before Ambinder published his post.  The key one is here.   If Ambinder had troubled to read his colleague with care, he would have seen a discussion of one of the best available one-stop debunkings of the whole CRA-poor-folk-are-the-problem slander.

Here's the key quote from Robert Gordon's breakdown of the role of CRA in the crisis:

Most important, the lenders subject to CRA have engaged in less, not more, of the most dangerous lending. Janet Yellen, president of the San Francisco Federal Reserve, offers the killer statistic: Independent mortgage companies, which are not covered by CRA, made high-priced loans at more than twice the rate of the banks and thrifts. With this in mind, Yellen specifically rejects the "tendency to conflate the current problems in the sub-prime market with CRA-motivated lending.? CRA, Yellen says, "has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households." [italics added]

So let's recap.  Ambinder says, in essence, that Frank was playing the race card when he accused the other side of playing the race card in the argument over who should take the blame for the financial mess.

But Frank was right about both aspects of the question in dispute:  first, the CRA is not materially at fault -- to state otherwise is a lie, disproved on the numbers over the decades-long history of the act; as you can see detailed in the piece on the other end of the link above CRA governed institutions are less, not more, likely to have engaged in bad lending practices...

...and hence, second, GOPers and the McCain campaign itself, are in fact playing to the worst of our national psychoses, as, with their now famous wink, they blame the irresponsible poor, many of whom, as Frank noticed, just happen to be black, for taking and defaulting  on loans that -- they alledge --  would not have been made hwere it not for the dasterdly CRA.

That is:  Ambinder's chiding of Frank for telling the truth echoes, perhaps amplifies, the very wound that Frank is trying to excise from our body politic.

To echo the source on this kind of post, Brad DeLong, why oh why can't we have a better press corps.

Image: Walker Evans, Bethlehem houses and steel mill. Pennsylvania, Nov. 1935.  This image is available from the United States Library of Congress's Prints and Photographs Division under the digital ID fsa.8c52905.  Source:  Wikimedia Commons.

The committee is joined by Samantha Robichaud, an award-winning Canadian violinist and recipient of the Daniel Pearl Memorial Violin in 2005, who will lead the effort in Eastern Canada and by journalist Katharine Hamer, who takes charge on Canada’s West Coast.JoAnne Spies, with the help of some friends, performs "Snow in Paradise" at Johnny D's in Boston, MA on October 11, 2007for FODfest '07, a concert tour celebrating the life of the late Wall St. Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. Filmed By Andy Torraco.

As part of this year’s Daniel Pearl Music Days, FODfest ‘08, an annual concert tour celebrating music as a universal language, will take place from October 10-26. Now in its fourth year, the tour will feature 16 concerts on the East and West Coasts and include well over 100 musicians from across the country and beyond. FODfest is a unique acoustic format that is part concert, part song swap and part jam session. The tour features several of the musicians who knew Danny and played music with him and many who never knew him but connect with his ideals and were touched by his story. FODfest is organized and produced by Todd Mack, a former band mate and close friend of Danny’s. Musicians interested in participating in FODfest should contact Todd at info@fodfest.org. More information can be found at www.fodfest.org or www.youtube.com/fodfest

Vitas from Russia

Supporting our mission to educate, unite and inspire the next generations to work for a hate-free world.

CONTENTS

MUSIC:

• Seventh Annual Daniel Pearl World Music Days Set For October 1-31, 2008
• Friends of Danny’s Festival (FODfest)
• World Music Days in Canada
• Musical Compositions Dedicated to Daniel Pearl
• 2008 Daniel Pearl Memorial Violin Winners Announced in San Diego

JOURNALISM:

• Daniel Pearl Journalism Fellowships
• Daniel Pearl Editorial Fellows
• PEARL World Youth News

DIALOGUE:

• Daniel Pearl Dialogues for Muslim-Jewish Understanding

LECTURES:

• Annual Daniel Pearl Memorial Lectures at UCLA and Stanford
• Lectures by Judea Pearl

AWARDS:

• Los Angeles Press Club, Daniel Pearl Award
• The South Asian Journalists Association Daniel Pearl Award
• 2008 Daniel Pearl Memorial Journalism Intern - Stanford
• The 2008 Daniel Pearl Berkshire Scholarship
• Three Daniel Pearl Prizes Awarded to Journalism Students in Paris

The ADL/Moss Family Daniel Pearl Award

The programs of the Daniel Pearl Foundation are made possible by people like you. We hope you will reaffirm your generosity by supporting our mission to educate, unite and inspire the next generations to work for a hate-free world.

World Music Days in Canada

A Canadian Committee for promoting the 7th Annual Daniel Pearl World Music Days was established in May of this year by Ron Smith with members from Temple Har Zion in Thornhill, Ontario.

The committee is joined by Samantha Robichaud, an award-winning Canadian violinist and recipient of the Daniel Pearl Memorial Violin in 2005, who will lead the effort in Eastern Canada and by journalist Katharine Hamer, who takes charge on Canada’s West Coast.
“Most rewarding has been the support and interest from various faith groups,” Smith said. “It is truly amazing how many people know artists who care – all you have to do is ask. We would be glad to share our experiences and assist anyone to start their own committee for their region or country.

Thank you for supporting our vision for a better world.

Sarah McLachlan From Canada - World on Fire

Friends of Danny’s Festival (FODfest)

With exactly four weeks to go in the 2008 Presidential race, and less than three hours before round 2 of McCain vs. Obama, I offer this pre-date primer. The Media Matters Action Network emailed me a memorandum of lies viewers should be expected to hear tonight and with the McCain campaign signaling that the gloves are off, do expect the whiff of bullshit you'll be smelling to be extremely petulant.

While the economy is in shambles, the Republican ticket, ever focused on the important issues, is telling you to get to know the "real" Obama. One day they may even reveal to you that he is Black!! In the meantime, what this really means is the continuance of the tired out tactic of guilt by association. We have seen that most recently as Palin peddled out the bullshit notion that Obama pals around with terrorists. To deter such nonsense, Media Matters offers the following:

CLAIM: Obama has a close and meaningful “association” with former ‘60s radical William Ayers.

FACTS: Ayers is neither a close friend nor an adviser of Barack Obama’s. He has no involvement in Obama’s campaign.

The "association" of Obama and Ayers, as has been extensively documented, consists of (1) a 1995 meeting of Chicago political figures at which Obama appeared, which took place in Ayers' home; (2) the fact that the two served together on the board of the Woods Fund, a charitable organization; and (3) the fact that the two attended six meetings of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a program funded by the late Walter Annenberg, a longtime Republican donor and Richard Nixon's ambassador to Great Britain. Obama chaired the group's board, and Ayers attended the meetings to brief the board on education issues. But as The New York Times reported on October 4, "the two men [Obama and Ayers] do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called ‘somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.' " Indeed, Obama was not in any way involved in Ayers' actions in the late '60s and early '70s; Obama was between 8 and 11 years old at the time of the bombings in which Ayers said he participated as part of the Weather Underground.

Another whiff of bullshit you may unfortunately be on the receiving end of tonight is on the issue of Afghanistan:

CLAIM: Obama said that our troops in Afghanistan are "just air-raiding villages and killing civilians."

FACTS: Obama's statement was not a characterization of the entirety of U.S. operations in Afghanistan, but rather an observation about the consequences of a troop shortage and subsequent reliance on airstrikes.

In an August 13, 2007, town hall meeting, Obama was asked whether he would withdraw troops from Iraq to fight terrorism elsewhere. He responded: "We've got to get the job done there [Afghanistan], and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there." Obama's acknowledgment that U.S. reliance on airstrikes has resulted in civilian casualties, which harms the war effort, has been echoed by, among others, the commander of troops Afghanistan, Gen. David McKiernan. In fact, U.S. airstrikes in Afghanistan -- and accounts of resulting civilian casualties -- have been widely reported and have provoked criticism from Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Further, Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently apologized for deaths resulting from coalition airstrikes, saying in a September 17 statement: "I offer all Afghans my sincere condolences and personal regrets for the recent loss of innocent life as a result of coalition airstrikes. While no military has ever done more to prevent civilian casualties, it is clear that we have to work even harder. I have asked for a detailed briefing this afternoon about our close air support as well as our intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance operations."

As an ending note, you will surely see the members of the U.S. military used as a political prop in a game of whose yellow ribbon is bigger! McCain is likely to suggest once more that Obama is a troop hating bastard and did the unthinkable of voting to cut off funding to them! *Gasp!*

CLAIM: Obama voted to cut off funding for our troops in Iraq.

FACTS: While Obama voted against a war-funding bill in May 2007 because it lacked a timeline for withdrawing troops from Iraq, the month before, Obama voted for a war-funding bill that included such a timeline, and, in fact, Obama has voted 10 times for war-funding bills.

As FactCheck.org noted, "McCain (who was absent for the vote) urged the president to veto that funding measure, because of the withdrawal language. President Bush did veto it, and McCain applauded Bush's veto. Based on those facts, it would be literally true to say that ‘McCain urged a veto of funding for our troops.' "

Moreover, by McCain's standard, he too voted to cut off funding for our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. McCain voted against the Senate version of a March 2007 bill that would have funded the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and would have provided more than $1 billion in additional funds to the Department of Veterans Affairs.

A responsible media of talking heads would sift through this nonsense with great ease. Don't expect them to, for example, point out that the U.S. and NATO forces have killed at least twice as many civilians as the reconstituted Taliban forces. That's not how things work and the people of the U.S. are worse for it. As the McCain campaign's strategy of desperation is appearing more and more to be like a internet bulletin board baiter who obfuscates real issues orientated debates into sidetracking attacks, it is important to remember that unfortunately, this strategy is indeed fruitful. I still hope, in the end, that there is still a reason to appeal to reason.

So what was it, on television last night, that made me curse my feet's rejection any footwear other than flats? (If you're going to smash a TV, do it well - with heels, that's what I say.) It was Dispatches, on Channel 4 at 9pm.

Now, I've not watched much Dispatches before (same time as America's Next Top Model I expect), but in response to my copious moaning today, people tell me it's usually quite good. Well last night it wasn't. It was dreadful.

I think one of my main problems was that I turned to Dispatches, enticingly entitled The Hidden World of Lap Dancing after watching Panorama on BBC1 about racism in the police force. The BBC's The Secret Policeman Returns was smoothly done (Tetley's Bitter would be proud), with a variety of revealing interviews and some quite shocking statistics from various sources, including FOI requests.

Dispatches, on the other hand, relied soley on one man and his camera going into lap dancing clubs and seeing how much sex he could get for his money. The investigative journalism went no further - not a FOI request (investigative journalism for the lazy) in sight.

Sometimes the mole's (or Moley, as I will now call him) money couldn't get him any sex - but, never fear - Dispatches balanced this (literal!) anticlimax with laughable quanties of naked women dancing. To describe last nights' Dispatches as soft porn would an insult to the word soft.

One time however (and how the producers must have wept with relief) Moley was explicitly offered sex. But the girls who offered it said that if the club found out they'd be sacked. In my opinion, this isn't revealing. This is like any woman offering any man sex for money; the fact that it happened to be in a lap dancing club is inconsequential. Dispatches unsurprisingly disagreed.

Do not, however, get the impression that Dispatches wasn't entertaining viewing. When not laughing at the gratuitous nakedness, one could always find humour in Moley's desperate attempts to get the girls to explicitly state sexual intentions to the camera. The extent to which he pushed their intelligent reluctance to talk candidly (if for no other reason than the intrinsic unsexiness of the word "wank") implied that he was in a strip club, but didn't actually know what sex was. Bless.

Last night's Dispatches only served to prove to me firstly, that I should stick with LivingTV, and secondly, that quality invesitagtive journalism still exists, just in the form of Panorama. I'm pretty sure this is not what the producers will have intended.

But that's good. From where I sit, multiple iterations are the way to progress on the web. Too often web developers sit for months creating a grand castle,  worrying the details until it's just "right." But time passes, opinions multiply, and eventually the grand castle is released as a McMansion with a scrim of Google ads running down the side. Three years later, another team is back at it, with pictures of a new castle up on the conference room walls.

Theatlantic.com, by contrast, just keeps pushing out upgrades every few months. Each one gets better, and creates subsequent opportunities to correct and change course.

Here's the new masthead, which anticipates the printed magazine's new retro look:

And here's editor James Bennet's explanation of what's going on.

Key detail. A news-ish feature called "The Current" has been renamed "Dispatches." Good move. "Dispatches" I understand. "The Current". . .not so much. More proof that on the web, clear beats clever every time.

Longstanding grievance: How could an operation that "gets it" so well still view the website as a way to sell subscriptions to the petroleum-and-lumber version of the magazine, so much so that it is willing to degrade web user experience in the process of pushing pulp? Witness:

FOUR FREAKIN' PROMPTS TO SUBSCRIBE THE PRINTED MAGAZINE, ABOVE THE FOLD, OCCUPYING THE MOST VALUABLE REAL ESTATE ON THE WEBSITE.

Stop that, I tell you, stop that!

Ifill's visibility at the debates got me to thinking about journalism and broadcasting as career choices. (To see details on journalism and broadcasting as career choices, check out CBSalary.com for more information.)

Famous faces

We know that the National Association of Black Journalists was formed in 1975, and currently has 3,300 members.

Who are some of the most visible black journalists, past and present, who have worked on television and for newspapers and magazines?

• Carl T. Rowan was one of the most high-profile editorial columnists in the country.
• Another visible editorial columnist is William Raspberry, who writes for the Washington Post.
• Lester Holt is one of the most visible figures at NBC News. He is the anchor for Weekend Today as well as the weekend editions of the NBC Nightly News.
• Holt's morning show competition at ABC is Robin Roberts, who came to the show after a stint reporting on sports at ESPN.
• And Oprah Winfrey got her career start as a news anchor at a Nashville television station.

Local newspapers and television stations have diverse staffs reporting on African-American interests and African-American lives. Tell us: who is your favorite reporter on TV or in your local paper?

The travails of Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, owned by General Electric, now in the tank

By Allan Erickson

10.7.08

Keith Olbermann is proof anyone can be successful in America, even a hack sportscaster with a chip on his shoulder the size of Texas.  Keith thinks he is a journalist.  Others know him to be nothing more than a hitman.

Check it out, check it out!   Watch a master journalist at work!

The mission that was, or wasn’t - - - tick, tick, tick.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dm3zb-Zz5o&feature=related  

24 seconds

Here, Keith explains the 2^nd Amendment, contradicting the Supreme Court and the Founding Fathers!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPrkBXBiRZY&NR=1   

27 seconds.

Watching his nightly Disassociations, one is perplexed.   You are forced to ask: how did this man achieve status?  What can explain his presence on national television spewing volumes of angry, hateful, deranged non-sense?  Viewers actually “enjoy” this stuff?  This is information “in the public service?”  

What can possibly explain his seething hatred for Sarah Palin? 

Did Keith get hit on the noggin as a kid playing Hardball?  Did his father beat him?  Did his mother neglect him?  Was his uncle a predator?   What explains Keith’s condition? 

He has been diagnosed (it is true) with Wittmaack-Ekbom’s syndrome, a neurological disorder also known as “restless legs” rendering the sufferer sleep deprived.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/06/23/080623fa_fact_boyer

Perhaps it’s more serious than perennial grumpiness caused by itchy legs, and no sleep.

Does he occupy that position on TV because powerful friends hope to keep him so occupied he’ll not go postal?  Is his MSNBC employ really therapeutic, a way to protect us from Keith roaming the streets unsupervised? 

Anyone who has done worked with inmates, out of control youth, or addicts, knows, sooner or later, intervention is required.  In Olbermann’s case, so long as NBC gets the ratings, it’s delayed, as a function of economics.  Trouble is, the man is going from bad to worse---much, much, worse.  But, GE needs the bailout, so . . .

Watching Keith you expect him to blow an artery all over the camera at any moment, or go berserk and strangle the cameraman in a fit of misplaced homicidal payback, deliriously convinced he is choking the life out of George W. Bush. 

Keith is wound so tight (lighten up Francis!) you wonder if he is on meds, and fear without meds, he’d go ballistic and trigger a massive stroke.  Maybe the itchy legs medication is causing serious side-effects, like paranoid schizophrenia.

How interesting it would be to observe Keith having a few friends over for cocktails, say, Barney Frank, and Bill Maher and Rachel Maddow.  Barney and Rachel are openly gay, while Keith and Bill are openly idiotic, and proudly cruel.  Conversation would be richly vicious, distinctly depraved, and thoroughly grim to be sure.  Just think how things would liven up with a few belts!  Eventually they’d be found chewing off their own fingers in a writhing orgy of disgust for all things Norman Rockwell.

Since Rachel used to sub for Keith, and now hosts her own show, which is beating Keith in the ratings, does he deem her the “Worst Person in the World?”  In his dreams perhaps.

Keith loves to designate individuals the “Worst Person in the World,” allegedly his stab at wit, or something.  In June, he named Katie Couric.  (Does it matter CBS passed over Keith to hire Katie?)

As a result, even the puerile pundits at Huffington can no longer stomach Olbermann.

Huffington’s Rachel Sklar: I find it a bit rich that Keith Olbermann would chastise anyone on the subject of "separating the hype from the news" or "the nonsense that Senator Clinton was a victim of pronounced sexism." And yet he did just that last night in naming Katie Couric his "Worst Person in the World" for speaking out about the sexism evidenced in some of the media coverage of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.

In fairness, perhaps Keith saw a chance to present himself as fair and balanced by providing equal time to the Left, knifing Couric to demonstrate he is a non-partisan warlord.

Other tidbits: 

On his time at ESPN---"Olbermann's tenure at ESPN was characteristically contentious. One of his co-anchors, Suzy Kolber, has said that Olbermann was sometimes so overbearing that she would lock herself in the bathroom and cry. Another colleague, Mike Soltys, has said that when Olbermann left the network, in 1997, 'he didn't burn bridges here--he napalmed them.'"

“First day he was in TV, I knew right away that Keith had something that I'd never seen. He was made for this. I mean, the guy is crazy, but he is made for this." Phil Griffin, MSNBC 

Later Griffin would say: " . . . you commit yourself to him, and he turns out to be a jerk and difficult and brutal.”

Source

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/15/emnew-yorkerem-is-keitho_n_107193

Plus we all recall Keith’s handlers having to discipline the errant child during the conventions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtPHdy3GAZ0&NR=1

For a rich sample of the King of Cruelty, watch this masterpiece on Sarah Palin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ue2Y1ukV1g&feature=related  

Olbermann has a good editor (who must stay at least 100 feet away from Keith at all times.)

How about this glittering example of professional journalism, a “commentary” leveled directly at President Bush just last May?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaYjFGV9c6g

“Men and women butchered in Iraq.”    

(Keith:  a little tip---don’t get too close to an American military family, please, for you own good, sir.)

Keith stayed up until 3 am writing this “report,” this “commentary,” and rapidly sent it to his pals at Daily Kos.  Say no more, say no more.  Even Tom Brokaw had a little trouble with this bottomless vomit pit.

For a real piece of journalism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPXSdjdbZU8&feature=related

In the end, we suspect Olbermann, the video vivisectionist, just likes to watch people bleed, much like Sid, in “Toy Story,” a cartoon character in a cartoon world, a feral adolescent, like Eddie Haskell on meth.

See, here’s the thing Keith, you are a big mouth with a short fuse masquerading as a journalist, but, all you are really doing is making enemies, and hastening your own demise.

Ultimately, you’ll self- designate:  “Worst Person in the World.”  (After your tenure as press secretary for President Obama and the holocaust you’ll help him bring.)

Time to Boycott GE and NBC?

PS:  If you need more information:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmIHHCQKUSY&NR=1   Chris Wallace nails Keith

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QMiVIx5HEo&feature=related  Glenn Beck nails Keith

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrsI6ELO8Gg&feature=related

Lackluster minds discuss people.  Average minds contemplate events.  Great minds explore ideas. 

Where do you fit Keith?

Mbanga handed me and my coursemates copies of his publication, something he has every right to be especially proud of.  However he admitted in his BJR article that this situation cannot continue indefinitely, that the threat is too dangerous for those he loves, and that he may be forced to end his work soon.

"I and my fellow journalists have chosen to take up the weapon of words against Mugabe’s guns. We are prepared to face the repercussions of our actions. Some have already paid the ultimate sacrifice. But not my children. A line must be drawn somewhere, and very soon."

Hopefully this will never be realised, and although the climate has certainly improved in Zimbabwe, we must wait and see.

It's turning so ugly that even the slash-and-burn media that normally thrive on scandal and controversy are becoming disgusted by it. In the meantime, the tactics--once denounced by McCain--don't seem to be working anyway, and are turning off even some conservatives who weren't already abandoning ship because of Palin's clear lack of qualifications, and who recognize that the attacks are an attempt to avoid discussion of the economy.

Obviously many Republicans still think McCain can win (as do skittish Democrats, particularly those concerned about the possibility of stolen elections in Ohio, Florida, fictional Springfield, and elsewhere). With a month to go, they're right, but McCain's odds grow longer each day. Barring unforeseen and dramatic events, the final two debates are his last chance to turn the tide, and even there his timing is bad. While time as a POW forty years ago doesn't qualify anyone to be president or make someone a foreign politcy expert, such experience is even less relevant to economic expertise--McCain's admitted weakness.

Tonight's debate will feature the "town hall forum" that McCain generally likes, but such forums work best for candidates who are viewed as affable and compassionate. The strategy adopted by the McCain campaign, however, is neither of those, and he may find himself on the defensive against an audience (which, unlike with his previous forums, will not be made up of Republican supporters) that is more concerned with keeping their own jobs (or someday being able to retire from them) than with helping some rich guy from either party get a new job.

A defensive McCain can come across as an angry McCain, probably the worst tone he could adopt tonight. As Slate's John Dickerson points out, "One thing we know: You don't want Joe Six Pack calling you out." Or a hockey mom, for that matter. One oddity not discussed enough in the media is how McCain keeps blaming his propensity for lying on Obama's unwillingness to engage in more town hall meetings. Another problem for a candidate trying to make up ground, based on a half-dozen conversations I've had today, is that potential debate viewers disdane what has happened to the process. "I'll probably watch part of it, but if it's like the campaign has been lately, I'll turn it off," one coworker said about the debate.

What most Americans care most about right now is the plunging Dow and other negative economic aspects. Like Winnie the Pooh, their concerns are relatively simple and immediate, not about someone who engaged in bad behavior when Obama was 8 years old or McCain's experience as a POW. And while the donkey is a Democratic symbol, it is McCain who is coming across as the old, gray, pessimistic, thistle-eating Eeyore who is yet again about to lose his tail.

Assuming the next two debates don't dramatically change the electoral map--and I predict they won't--I have another bit of advice for John McCain: "Live up to your motto, 'Country first.' Admit that your campaign is essentially defeated, and that it's time to get to work on problems. Start talking about how conservatives and liberals can work together to solve tough problems. Note the great things about being an American, and how you'll continue to work with anyone to make the country even stronger. Send Palin home to Alaska, tell your surrogates to shut up, and offer to turn over any money left over from your campaign to people who are losing their homes or jobs. Now that would be a 'maverick' thing to do. It might even restore your once positive image, and conceivably turn the election from a potential rout to a close contest."

 I'm growing a little weary of the constant cry that ‘journalism is changing'. Not because I'm doubtful that it is, but because I can't seem to think of a time when it hasn't been, in one form or another.

The death knell of journalism has been declared several times now, and I'm feeling a bit like someone's crying wolf. Many journalists don't like Web 2.0, because they feel like it does them out of a job, and they can no longer lord it over the little people.

Thankfully however, there are others, such as Jeff Jarvis acting as a cheerleader for the citizen journalist, hopefully the line that many others will eventually start to adopt. There probably will be some professionals out there who'll be put out of a job because of the new breed of bloggers, twitterers et al., but let's face it, if they can't do a job as well as an amateur, they probably shouldn't be doing it anyway. As Jarvis rightly says, it's ‘professional journalism and its jealousies'.

Personally, and I'm not sure about admitting this in such a public forum, but here goes it, I've always been a big-time geek. I was a user of Web 1.0, never mind Web 2.0. The latter however meant that I could concentrate on content, not style, and more importantly meant I needed to be better because if I wasn't, there were thousands, nay millions ready and willing to take the baton.

Although I'd had websites when I was younger, I didn't start my blog until about six months ago. Why did I do that? Well, crazily enough, I thought, as an aspiring writer I should probably do some writing. (Sometimes I have crazy thoughts like that, but I do try to keep them under control). It started around the same time I got my Flickr account. A long-time fan of photography, my sister introduced me to a crazy project called ‘One Photo a Day for a Year', and Flickr was the perfect platform this. I can now lose an entire day looking through other people's photos and projects, and bizarrely enough, even my mother now has her own page. (She shouts at me when I don't upload a photo for a while...).

Going back to blogging, it worries me slightly that some people want to make money from their blog, because for me, it's never been about that. My blog is my space for my thoughts and my opinion, I don't care if it makes money, in fact I probably don't want it to. As soon as money comes in to the picture (however nice that undeniably is) it becomes all about writing things that make money; and that might not necessarily be what I want to write about. Of all the professional blogs I've ever read (such as Nick Robinson's, Media Monkey etc have been written by professionals, yes, but aren't the sole writing job of the individual involved).

Of course Web 2.0 is more than just blogs. I think it's pretty safe to assume that all of us love Wikipedia. Who hasn't declared something to be true, only to be backed up by Wikipedia? Need to know exactly what the American Civil War was - never fear, Wiki's here! Wikipedia is amazing, because people are amazing. Look at what we can do, together across the world, when we share our knowledge. Okay, perhaps you can't rely on Wikipedia 100%, but you probably can 95%, and 99% of the time that's good enough.

Twitter on the other hand, is something I, even as a self-confessed geek hadn't used before until a couple of weeks ago. Admittedly I knew what it was; The Guardian seems to have been a big fan of it for a while now. I will confess, I didn't quite see the point of it, but (and I really like it when this happens) I've been proved wrong. Within a week, I've become slightly addicted, and I think (if perhaps not now) it will become extremely useful in the future.

So what's going to happen when Web 3.0 gets here? Well I don't quite know, but Wikipedia (god I love that) says this: ‘such as those using semantic web, microformats, natural language search, data-mining, machine learning, recommendation agents, and artificial intelligence technologies'. Well, even to me, Mrs Mega-Geek that means nothing, but I can't wait to find out.

The majority of people who read MSNBC's World Blog from yesterday, entitled "Egyptians Looking for 'Good Side' of America," probably did not get the full story.  The post was about Egyptian sentiment towards the upcoming presidential election in the US.  Much of the story was correct, like the fact that "most Egyptians agree that President Bush's legacy in the region has been one of instability."  I would say that most Egyptians are ready to move on from Bush.  But to say that most Egyptians are otherwise excited for the election or have strong beliefs as to which candidate would be better is probably not accurate.  

At issue with MSNBC's blog is the fact that their writer did not examine a representative cross section of Egyptians in their soundbites on the street.

The real problem was the video in the post.  Four people were interviewed - including one of the most famous drummers in Egypt - in arguably the richest neighborhood in Cairo.  The backdrop for these testimonials may look "local", but it is actually the 26th of July overpass in Zamalek, a lush and quiet neighborhood full of expensive boutiques and European embassies.  

Do these four English-speaking subjects hanging out in the "Manhattan of Cairo" really represent the people of Egypt?  No.  

Take a look at some of the more valid comments on the post: 

Two Egyptian professors, a travel agency manager, and a jazz musician -- that sounds like a representative slice of Egypt. Or maybe just one dinner party's conversation inflated into an article.  A Myers, Ithaca, NY

I thought it was funny how the university professor from Cairo was a 'Drama Professor'.. Did they talk with a professor whose studies might have anything to do with the global economy or relations?? Just Drama, Nice NBC... good job..john

This article is wildly misleading and inaccurate and I say this as someone who works in Egypt and speaks Arabic.  Did this writer ask anyone outside the super educated and the very small Western elite?  Most Egyptians barely have any clue about either candidate.  Amongst the Westernized elite yes there proabably is a preference for Obama.  But amongst the masses the idea that they are pulling for Obama is ridiculous and shows that this author is a novice in Egypt.  I am not saying they are rooting against him.  They just arent nearly as interested or aware of the upcoming elections as the author claims Nathan, Wilmington, Delaware

The real question our readers should be asking is: Why?  Why were the MSNBC viewers only presented with such a narrow cross-section of the populace?  

The sad thing is that their post was read by thousands of people.  This post will likely not.

Di BK-lah semua teori-teori komunikasi serta teori-teori jurnalistik selama dua tahun dipraktekkan. Tetapi apa yang terjadi? Tiba-tiba semua teori itu hilang. Terlupakan. Yang ada sekarang : bagaimana caranya agar page sekian bisa keisi penuh. Bagaimana caranya agar page sekian ngga kosong melompong. Lalu diadakanlah Surat Pembaca, page yang gw sendiri ngga yakin kalau ada orang yang ngirim email dengan isi yang ngga penting ke redaksi BK seperti perkara sinki (baca:wastafel) yang kotor atau perkara teman sekamar yang rese’ (baca:ngeselin gara-gara ngga kompak, suka bikin ulah). Selain itu ada juga page Sudut Santai yang berisi lawakan-lawakan garing yang kadang udah kita baca dari jamannya Anwar Ibrahim masih jadi Timbalan Perdana Menteri atau bahkan joke-joke yang mungkin hanya di copy-paste dari internet.

I mean like, helloooooo. Ngga usah maksa kaya gitu lah.

Tapi siapa sih yang mau dengerin gw? Gw kan bukan siapa-siapa. Seberapa besar sih pengaruh suara dan pendapat gw? Siapa juga yang mau ngedukung pendapat gw nantinya? Maka dari kasus ini kita dapat memetik pelajaran moral nomer satu (ala Andrea Hirata nih) yaitu : yang minoritas mendingan diem aja. Karna bagaimana pun, kaum majoriti akan selalu menang.

Well, itu semua karna gw rasa gw amat-sangat-terlambat saat proses decision making dulu waktu awal-awal semester. Waktu itu bulan Juli, dimana yang ada di dalem kepala gw cuma Sparkling, Sparkling dan Sparkling. Tapi gw ngga menyesal untuk itu. Sparkling juga merupakan kebanggaan tersendiri buat gw, bukan sesuatu yang harus disesali.

Waktu itu, diskusi sudah dimulai. Start dari pemilihan mast head BK, housestyle BK, jumlah halaman BK, sampai ke soal siapa aja yang bakal terlibat di BK.

Ya, satu hal yang menarik dari BK ini adalah semuanya dikerjakan dengan asas kerelaan alias volunteer. Semua jabatan dalam satu edisi BK, mulai dari Ketua Pengarang (baca:Pemimpin Redaksi), Timbalan Ketua Pengarang (baca:wakil PemRed), Ketua Penyunting (baca:Editor), Timbalan Ketua Penyunting (baca:asisten Editor), Ketua Atur Letak (Lay-Out), Pengurus Iklan, sampe Pengurus Pemasaran, semuanya menggunakan asas volunteer : kesempatan terbuka bagi siapa saja yang ingin menduduki jabatan itu. Tentunya ada kompensasi yang besar bagi mereka yang berani mencoba posisi itu : nilai yang di atas rata-rata. Dirimu akan terlihat shining di depan Tuan Haji Haroon berbanding teman-temanmu yang lain.

Sementara gw sendiri pernah nyoba jadi asisten editor sama pengurus iklan. Selebihnya, sumbangsih gw hanya berupa pasokan berita soal event kampus dan ulasan buku atau film. Gw belom berani jadi Ketua Pengarang, maybe next semester. Gw masih kepingin liat gimana cara temen-temen BK gw yang pernah menjabat posisi itu. Gw juga pernah jadi tim lay-out dimana setiap orang kebagian ngedesain dua halaman. Walaupun pada akhirnya lay-out yang kita kerjain terkadang bisa dirubah total oleh Ketua Atur Letak (Lay Out), tapi at least kita pernah nyobain nge-lay out BK.

Kesemua sumbangsih ini harus kita tulis dalam sebuah laporan pada setiap edisi BK. Dari situ akan keliatan, seberapa aktif dan seberapa malaskah diri kita?

Tentunya pelajar yang memasok berita lebih dari tiga akan mendapat nilai yang lebih tinggi daripada pelajar yang hanya memasok satu berita saja. Lalu apa hanya itu yang menjadi barometer penilaian seorang pelajar? Apakah kuantitas selalu lebih penting dari kualitas? Maka dari sini kita dapat memetik pelajaran moral nomer dua : perbanyaklah memasok tulisan karna di situlah nilaimu dipertaruhkan. Bagaimana tidak, di BK ini ada dua paper yang dipertaruhkan. Pertama adalah Pengurusan dan Penerbitan Akhbar yang nilainya 100% kerja praktek. Dan yang kedua adalah paper Kewartawanan II yang seinget gw, masih ada sekitar 30% nilai akan diambil dari exam. Wheewww. Serem ngga sih lu?

Soal penulisan berita, semua orang bebas memilih untuk meng-cover story apa yang dia inginkan, feature mengenai apa yang ingin dia tulis, buku dan film apa yang ingin di-review, serta dengan siapa dia ingin meng-cover story itu. Yepp. Lu bisa nulis berita sendirian, berdua, bahkan bertiga. Tapi jangan seneng dulu, ngga semua tulisan lu bisa diterbitin di BK-walaupun lu nulis berita itu bertiga. Lagian, tulisan yang lu tulis susah payah belum tentu bisa ditampilin semuanya. Maka pelajaran moral nomer tiga adalah : ngga usah nulis panjang-panjang, karna nanti tulisan lu juga bakal dipotong-potong oleh editor. Daripada nantinya lu sendiri yang sakit hati?

Selain itu, pernah suatu ketika gw pingin cover story ini, tiba-tiba udah ada aja orang BK di event itu. Padahal gw udah nulis di daftar assignment kalo gw pengen cover story itu. Gw pingin review film ini, tiba-tiba udah ada aja orang yang submit review-nya ke Editor. Maka pelajaran moral nomer empat adalah : cepat-cepatlah kamu submit tulisanmu ke editor sebelum orang lain mengumpulkannya terlebih dahulu.

Soal ulasan buku lebih kocak lagi. Percaya atau tidak, ngga semua buku yang di-review di BK adalah buku-buku baru. Gw juga ngga ngerti standar kualitas sesebuah buku itu harus bagaimana sehingga harus ada review-nya di BK. Akhirnya gw sendiri pun baru review novel Laskar Pelangi yang udah terbit dari 2005 yang lalu. Semua itu adalah semata-mata demi memenuhi page review. Review itu kan tujuannya menarik pembaca agar tertarik dengan buku yang sedang kita review, untuk kemudian tertarik ingin membacanya juga. Tapi gimana kita mau menarik pembaca untuk ikut membaca buku itu jika review yang kita tulis cuma empat sampe lima paragraf aja? Do u see what I mean? Maka jika kualitas bukanlah asasnya, pelajaran moral nomer lima dapat kita simpulkan bahwa : tulis saja apa adanya, karna yang penting lu buat review.

Selain melakukan wawancara dan menulis berita, pelajar BK juga harus mengambil sendiri photo dari sesebuah event. Semua bergantung pada event-nya. Kalau anda beruntung, anda bisa memperoleh byline atas tulisan anda dan mendapat credit jika photo anda dipajang di BK. Pelajaran moral nomer enam : ambillah foto yang bagus dan menulislah yang indah jika nama anda ingin dipajang di BK.

Terakhir, kesemua pelajar BK wajib menjual setiap edisi BK masing-masing 40 eksemplar dengan harga RM 0,50 per eksemplar. Kadang-kadang kita jual 32 eksemplar, semua bergantung pada jumlah produksi BK per edisi-nya. Ngga setiap edisi dijual dengan jumlah eksemplar yang sama. Dan soal jual-menjual ini yang paling dramatis. Bukan mudah lho menjual satu eksemplar kepada pelajar USM yang pelit-pelit itu. Waktu gw ’ditugaskan’ jualan di depan Bank CIMB, gw fine-fine aja. Alhamdulillah ternyata bisa habis juga seluruh jualan gw. Waktu ditanya apa ada yang beli di sekitar situ, ya gw bilang aja ada aja yang beli kok. Eeeh... Taunya besok-besoknya gw ditempatin di situ lagi. Gw sampe apal sama satpam-nya CIMB sekarang. Tiap gw jualan di situ pasti tu satpam ngeliatin gw. Ahahahaha.. Ya iyalaaah. Loper koran kok cantik. Looh??

Well, soal jual-menjual ini juga kadang-kadang jadi masalah. Gw akuin memang gw susah bangun pagi. Alhasil gw ngejual BK paling pagi jam 10 dan paling siang jam 12. Tiap gw dateng ke BK buat ngambil ’jatah’ jualan gw, pasti gw disindir-sindir gara-gara dateng lambat. I mean like, hellloooooo. Yang penting jualan gw abis kan? Yang penting semua BK yang gw jual itu laku kan? Soal gw mau ngejualnya jam berapa dan mau ngejual sama siapa aja, itu urusan gw. Udah jadi resiko gw kalo misalnya ngga banyak orang bakal beli BK gara-gara gw ngejualnya udah terlalu siang atau bahkan terlalu sore. Tapi alhamdulilah tiap gw jualan pasti laku semua. Allah emang baik sama gw. Tapi tetep aja, pelajaran moral nomer tujuh : juallah BK pagi-pagi agar dirimu tidak disangka membeli seluruh edisi BK dengan uangmu sendiri.

Kesimpulannya adalah, di BK ini gw ngerasa masing-masing orang mau menunjukkan diri. Memang sih, jika kita ngga ’nunjukin’ diri kita sendiri, lalu siapa yang mau ’nunjukin’?

Gw tau sumbangsih gw di BK ngga banyak. Sori kalo gw kurang berminat ngeliput berita soal aneka rangka manusia yang berhasil ditemuin arkeolog USM. Sori kalo gw kurang berminat ngeliput perkara batu yang jatuh di sekitar desasiswa Saujana. Sori kalo gw kurang berminat wawancara sama Jabatan Keselamatan.

Gw tau kesannya gw loser banget, harusnya gw ngga cuma ngomong (baca:nulis) gini aja. Ngomong seolah-olah gw doang yang paling bener dan semuanya harus sesuai sama keinginan gw. Tapi kan gw juga ngga nge-judge BK tuh harusnya begini, bukan begitu. BK itu bagusnya begini, bukan begitu.

Guys, coba baca kembali pelajaran moral nomer satu.

Yang gw sesali adalah, gw tau yang nyadar soal semua yang gw tulis di atas tuh ngga cuma gw doang. Gw menyesali tindakan temen-temen BK gw yang ikut arus gitu aja tanpa ingin mengadakan sesuatu perubahan yang radikal.

Maka percaya atau tidak, buat gw BK akan tetap seperti itu. Klasik. Desain yang itu-itu saja. Berita yang itu-itu saja. Dan akan selalu dipenuhi oleh ’orang-orang’ yang itu-itu saja. Sampai kapan pun.

[aman damai. 8 Oktober 2008]

[02.06 am]

Susan explained that the Knight News Challenge is looking for four things in a proposal:

• It has to be innovative. But this can also be dependent on the geographic location of a project. What is innovative in Canada will be different to what is innovative in Uganda.
• It has to be open source, scalable and replicable. Knight is looking for tools that can be developed and used by others.
• It has to serve the public interest. The projects should aim to help create a more active and informed citizenship. This could be through providing a place for democractic discourse.
• It has to serve a specific geographic community. What this means is that a project need to have a local testbed, much like Knight News Challenge winner Everyblock started off in Chicago and has now expanded to other US cities.

She also gave more details about the sorts of ideas that were likely to be well received. While Knight does not have a specific social justice focus, it is looking for projects that support democracy. It is also interested in ideas that make take data and information that is invisible and make it visible to the public, enabling a public discourse.

In a way, the Knight Foundation is trying to restore the role that US local newspapers had in serving a  community by  providing a place for people to find out what was happening in their area.

The way Knight has judged the applications has evolved since the project two years ago. Susan explained that the initial raft of proposals will be screened by a committee, whose ages ranged from 23 to 60, and are drawn from the world of online news, technology and non-profit.

This committee will chose projects and ask for more detailed submissions. In 2007, 400 ideas got to this stage out of 3,000 applications. These will then be judged by a final committee, among them Craig Newmark of Craigslist. In 2007, there were 67 finalists and 17 projects were funded.

Susan also explained that applicants should express why they are the person to do a project. 'Sell yourself as much as your idea," she advised. This could mean that you have the technical skills to turn an idea into a reality, or that you have a passion for the idea.

If you are in Vancouver and want to collaborate on an idea, there is a space online to share ideas and get feedback.  Richard Eriksson created the page, and asked in his blog post on the KNC08 meeting:

What's missing in the digital sphere of Vancouver that would enhance the discussions citizens are having about the city and the region? Do we need an EveryBlock for Vancouver, or has that been done for other cities? Maybe we can do something a little different?

Time to get thinking. The deadline for the initial application is November 1.

(Photo: Copyright 2008 Tris Hussey)

The man who incessantly talks about "honor" has checked his own at the door. Back in April, McCain -- himself the victim of a vicious, race-baiting smear campaign orchestrated by Karl Rove in 2000 -- disavowed a North Carolina adattacking Obama for his association with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. "It's not the message of the Republican Party," McCain said. "It's not the message of my campaign. I've pledged to conduct a respectful campaign."