Perspective colors perception: white = not-black = all colors combined

For those who believe that the news media puts on some spin when reporting stories: a satirical depiction of how different journalistic outlets might headline their report of an identical set of facts.  The category, from the good folks at Jest: Occupy Wall Street. (click the pic)


Thanks to Jest, and thanks to Steve Myers at romenesko and the Poynter Institute for the tip.

Taking back our country…from Americans with whom we disagree: it’s the New American Way

We may all look at the same things, but it is the wise man or woman who really sees…in this case sees the hypocrisy so clearly, and explains it with such good humor that I imagine even the hypocrites so exposed must be stifling a chuckle.  Or maybe not.  But I’m going to pass along this news to you nevertheless.

If you’ve paid attention to the news at all you’ve probably heard Republican politicians rallying support to “take back our country.”  (By the way, they’re not talking to American Indians.)  Ever wonder just who (whom?) it is that they believe took our country?  Well, Jon Stewart has divined that those who stand accused, although known by a host of other names, turn out to all be Americans.  Yes, Americans: people from America!  From these United States!  Of America!  Who knew?

And, when some Americans exercise their right of peaceful assembly to protest this “taking” those politicians praise them for their patriotism, while other Americans who do the same thing are castigated for so doing, and in fact castigated by many of the people who had originally whipped up the fervor for the taking…back, of our country.  Oh, heck, click the pic, he explains it funnier than me.


Thanks to Comedy Central and The Daily Show.

Dear Anita Perry,

I am surprised, I must say.  I’d have thought that after more than 30 years as the wife of a professional politician you wouldn’t be so sensitive to a little push-back.  But they are less deferential out in the rest of the country than we are back here at home in Texas, huh?  Getting all teary and everything because you think Governor Haircut has been “brutalized” due to his Christian faith?  Is that really going to be your best approach?

Anita PerryThe thing is, most of the rest of the country takes pluralism and religious tolerance seriously. They’re not all evangelical Christians like so very many here at home, and they don’t wear their faith on their sleeves, either.  Just because you are comfortable talking about your faith doesn’t mean everyone else is interested in hearing about it, especially people who make their voting decisions without little or no consideration of a candidate’s religion, and there are a lot of those people in America.

Frankly, most of America probably wouldn’t even know what church you folks belong to if you hadn’t made a big deal about it.  You’re the ones who brought your religion into this, so you can’t be a crybaby when others make it an issue.

After all, you’re part of the plurality here—white, Christian America—so you can’t whine when someone, or anyone, has the temerity to be anything but subservient or obsequious.  If on the one hand you proudly tell us that God’s call to your husband to run for president of the United States was like encountering a burning bush, then you cannot on the other hand complain when people question his relationships with religious figures like Robert Jeffress.

You said that these brutal attacks are coming from the news media as well as some of your fellow Republicans.  I’d like to suggest two things.  The first is to remind you (again) that reporters covering the campaign are supposed to investigate the claims made by candidates; they are not there merely to transcribe and distribute the candidates’ profound words.  They are supposed to poke and prod and ask questions and look for inconsistencies and errors, and publish their findings.  That’s reporting; that’s their job.  And the second thing is, if you’re unhappy about being attacked by Republicans you thought were your friends, well, welcome to a contested Republican primary.

One other thing, if I might.  I see you being quoted as saying this opposition comes “because of his faith.  He is the only true conservative.”  Apologies if I’m misunderstanding here, but are you saying that conservatism is a religious faith?  Or, that people who are not evangelical Christians are incapable of being “true conservatives”?  If so, that’s going to come as a big surprise to the members of the less-demonstrative Christian denominations, the Roman Catholics, the Jews, the Muslims, the Hindus, the Buddhists,  the Shintos, the Mormons, the Quakers, the Unitarian-Universalists,  the Scientologists, the Rastafarians and, of course, the atheists, agnostics and secular humanists who are all part of the Weekly Standard/Fox News Channel/Rush Limbaugh axis of moral superiority.

This morning on ABC News the governor stood by what you said yesterday in Tigerville, South Carolina (Tigerville?  Really?), and I think that’s exactly what he should have done; a man should stand up for his wife.  But if he really agrees with your sentiment, and his skin isn’t as thick as he’s let on, you two are in for quite an unpleasant ride.

Now, if you could please explain to me how it is that you blame President Obama for your son losing his job, as you claimed this morning, even though your son voluntarily resigned.  This should be good.

This is harder on me than it is on you, even though you really wouldn’t think that’d be the case

If you’re employed somewhere you’ve probably seen the memo: the stilted and awkward announcement that one of your co-workers is about to become one of your former co-workers, thanks to the right-sizing of the organization.  It’s almost as if bosses get special training in how to transmogrify what should be a simple and direct conveyance of a bit of office news into a hideous and/or hilarious trip to Freaktown.

A couple of years ago Chicago newsman Steve Daley, who died on Sunday at 62, authored the essential takeoff of the genre.  Read the whole thing at the Columbia Journalism Review.

John came to us (four years ago; in 1981; last month) from (the Bugle; the London School of Economics; a think tank in Phoenix). He arrived here with a reputation as (a sociopath; a member of the team of twenty-seven reporters that won a 1991 Polk award for the Bugle series on alternate street parking; a friend of the former executive editor).

John’s contributions to this paper have not gone without notice. He’s a (deft writer; diligent copy editor; pain in the neck), a man who is passionate about (the First Amendment; gerunds; the Bass Ale at Costello’s Taproom) and a newsroom leader who has (become obsessed with Google maps; not generated a single sexual harassment complaint; inspired legions of young reporters to consider teaching American Studies out at the junior college).


So it is with (mixed emotions; ill-disguised glee; a disturbing sense that I have now written about seventy-five of these tortured memos) that we bid farewell to our colleague. Moving forward, it is possible the number of voluntary buyout applications may be limited by (pure malice; Sarbanes-Oxley; the guy in the Crocs on 7). Only then will we know if the Involuntary Severance Program (“Opportunity 2009”) will be extended.

And the loser is…

The Playboy Club” for the first cancelled television series of the season!  Now really, just between us: was there really ever any doubt?  All you winners, please move in an orderly fashion to the payout window.