LGF's Charles Johnson posts about what he claims is the Associated Press' "PC Blindfold" - not mentioning Muslims or Islam in an article describing suicide bombings on Friday in Uzbekistan. The article he links to doesn't carry the text he includes anymore, but the Yahoo!-carried story may have been updated since its original posting.

Though the story does state that the group was "allegedly linked to al-Qaida," this doesn't seem to be specific enough. I searched around for a good portion of the text of the article Johnson linked to, just to see if it looked different in various places. I found a few articles that seem to contain additional differences from the original, including items at the Sacramento Bee, the Moscow Times, ABC News, AZCentral.com, and others. Many of these articles do reference "Muslims" or some related terms. In fact, if you look around enough, you'll find multiple versions of the same article - some were obviously edited for space, etc - which, if you do any basic research on how newspaper articles are put together, you'll learn that many, many times details are put into an article that don't make it past the editor's desk. That's why the "Tell them what you are going to tell them. Tell them. Tell them about what you told them." rule is in effect when writing an article.

In a related story, the top item on the FOXNews.com website on Sunday contains exactly zero references to "Islam" or "Muslims." The report, if you haven't read it already, describes an announcement that the 'chatter' from al Qaeda seems to offer details on very specific threats towards financial institutions and buildings in the New York/New Jersey area as well as Washington, D.C. The article was put together by Kelly Wright and Anna Stolley of Fox, plus the Associated Press.

Blindfold, indeed.

The American Family Association is running a new poll entitled "Does America need a TV network pushing the homosexual agenda?"

I strongly urge all of TMD's readers to go to the site and vote. Yes, I know you have to provide personal information, but it is mostly used in order to stop "stuffing" of the ballot box. The group's "opt out" does work, I speak from personal experience from prior polls.

As an aside, I was voter number 92,772, according to their tally.

[via Atrios]

The Gwinnett Daily Post writes, "Disc jockeys who use vulgarity and offensive programming to attract listeners are not only lacking in judgment but, apparently, also in talent. The real talent doesn’t have to take the minds of listeners down to the gutter level in order to be entertaining."

I think that might be the case in some instances, but I wouldn't say necessarily that a Howard Stern or Don Imus is without talent because they might be crude at some points. I know plenty of well-educated, ultra-talented folks who can be rude and crude on a whim and have it be entertaining for others. I can say in some cases that people only get on the air because they are very lewd in what is discussed on a regular basis - but at the same time, the station(s) put them on in the first place for that reason. So if your lack of talent is rewarded, then you end up continuing on whatever path got you the reward.

Pavlov wins. Again.

My read for the day is this post by Tim Porter where he describes his coinage "informational incest" to a T. If you didn't understand what the term was before, read the post and the included links, and it should be clear as day.

By telling is how it is, not by being "media personalities...commentators...hawkers, squawkers or gawkers" but "journalists," the news can be reported as news, not what someone else wants you to report as the truth or fact, clarifies Porter via points made by Eric Alterman and Michael Tomansky in American Prospect.

Porter says to "stop confusing media with journalism," and I couldn't agree more. Journalists happen to have their works published, criticized, or described through the "media" we all talk about. But they are their own men and women. They have an ability to take in a subject, interview, or event, digest it all, and convey it in a way where we, the reader, can pick it up in our publications, our television / radio programs, see what they have to say, and formulate a picture in our head of what went on. That's how your opinions come to fruition and you gain/lose interest in a story. The journalist does more than tell you what happened - it's part of their skill to point out intricacies or portray what the facts might be based on the "truths" that are given to them. That's why your newspaper doesn't look like basic Microsoft PowerPoint slides with five bullets under each article title and byline, leaving you to figure out what happened.

The article Porter refers to should be one of those "print a copy" things that anyone with an interest in journalism should read and save. Everyone needs a head-check once in a while, including those who work for the "media". What I really like about the collective works referred to here is that no one person has been lambasted or made to feel small based on any actions they might have done as a "journalist" in recent times - they just try to get the collective members of the crowd to realize where their intentions should stand.

Some of it is all in good fun, I'm sure, but what is the common reader and, furthermore, letter (email?) writer to think when a columnist responds with one of the two following things after some commentary about their work:

Exhibit A: Jim Romenesko points out that Neil Steinberg of the Chicago Sun-Times sends a form letterish email back to readers who comment back on his opinion columns, and...

Exhibit B: Wonkette writes about how WaPo reporter Jonathan Weisman apparently wasn't too happy about DeLong's writeup about the press corps being more descriptive in various pieces when it might be unfavorable for the target of the article to do so? I don't see how it's wrong to do, but apparently Weisman wasn't happy with it, and fired off an email posted here at Blogging the President.

Some interesting reactions from two different places. I think the first one might have had some good intention, but ends up doing exactly what Romenesko points out. Creating the "I'm up here and you're down there" situation, rather than just saying, "Thanks for your email, sorry you didn't like the column, but it is an opinion piece, and that's all. Points taken." I'm sure part of it comes from getting deluged with emails, but there needs to be a little restraint there, don't we think?

With regard to the latter, I'd say that was definitely Weisman reacting in such a way with the "that blogger person said what?" about his column, in a "how dare someone criticize me" kind of way. Get over it. You're a psuedo public figure, and you have to suck it up sometimes. While you might have a reaction internally, you don't have to blow up someone's spot over it.

In college, I wrote an article about the rapper Notorious B.I.G. being killed, and entitled it "Loss too B.I.G. to ignore" and submitted it to the entertainment editor at my student newspaper. Due to space constraints, etc., it ended up in the "opinion" section, which was kind of here and there-ish, not like your local paper, and I got flat out lambasted by a female student who thought I was being ignorant for not mentioning the plight of the young black males who are killed in the street every single day in senseless violence. While I understood her point completely, it ended up happening probably more because the article was published in the "opinion" section of the newspaper rather than in the Entertainment section. I was just focusing on the loss of a fairly popular star in the rap game's death, and only briefly touched on general violence in the streets and the loss of life every day. What did I do about it? Nothing. I took it as a good point, and it's something that I'm sure shapes things I've written ever since. "Did I put too much opinion in that? Am I looking at all sides?"

A million questions float through your head when you write things. Did I have to go after her about it, track her down at the school? No, I finished the next couple years of college, got a beat covering the hockey team for my senior year, and that was it. These things happen.

We all have to think when blasting emails out to our bosses, spouses, and friends. Perhaps we should all take two deep breaths and perhaps hit "draft" on that email before it hits the highway.