I'm calling a Time Out for Sheboygan

I read a really lame review of Sheboygan, WI today in Time Out Chicago. Not that the review was negative; it was just plain shoddy and superficial. As I began to bitch, I realized it was written by the editor-in-chief, Frank Sennett. Well, this guy should know better. So I wrote my first letter disapproving of a review:

Jesus Christ, man. If you're going to do a review, you might have to actually get out of your car/condo and do something. You made Sheboygan sound like the most boring little town ever. And it is, but in a really weird, interesting way. I don't usually send letters like this, but it makes me sad when a fellow journalist falls down on the job. And such a simple job it was! Were you hungover or something? Next time, hand the job to a hungry intern or newbie. They would probably love to get a free vacation to a funky, albeit dusty little Midwestern town. Thanks for once again reminding me why I'm not renewing my subscription to your lazy and increasingly elitist mag.

Meg White

P.S. In case you were wondering, I'm not from, nor have I ever lived in, Wisconsin or small-town America.

I'm mostly just posting this because I know this one won't make it into "Letters to the Editor."

Countdown to cancellation

I've tried to cancel my Sun-Times subscription several times, but those darn call center people are so persuasive. So, in preparation for my phone conversation tomorrow, I thought I'd organize my thoughts (don't think this means I'm switching to the Chicago Tribune, either. The New York Times will have to do, at least for the summer).


Top ten reasons I'm canceling my Sun-Times subscription:

10. Pointless pictures of other people's pets.

9. Commuter newspaper for some reason obsessed with cars (pothole patrol, Autotimes, continual gas price coverage).

8. Richard Roeper pretending he's better than Michael Sneed. Really they're separated by Roeper's use of complete sentences. Stick to the movies, bucko.

7. Mary Mitchell disguising her prejudices by exposing other peoples' prejudices.

6. Talk Back: the section for readers who are too crazy/illiterate to handle writing a letter or email.

5. Robert Novak's mere presence.

4. Paper only makes it to my door 57% of the time, though I pay for daily delivery. Funny, the delivery problems started occurring after the Sun-Times farmed out the service to Tribune Co. Coincidence?

3. Michael Sneed's overuse of "to wit," "translation," and "Obama drama."

2. The new "How I'm Saving Money" segment: a pandering distraction from a deeply troubled economy which goes largely uncovered.

1. Drew Peterson and R. Kelly's rotating front-page coverage.


...to The Watchdogs, Mark Brown and Abdon Pallasch: check you online, homies.

For the Nina Totenberg in you

There's a whole slew of code phrases put out by presidential candidates to hint at their potential impact on the long form institution of the Supreme Court: litmus tests, constructionist judges, legislating from the bench, etc. McCain, in his search for a base, however, doesn't mince words.

He's said he believes in "judges who enforce, and not make, our laws; the social values that are our true source of our strength; and, generally, the steadfast defense of our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which I have defended my entire career as God-given to the born and the unborn."

Also, the "Maverick" seems content to tow the party line when it comes to approving whomever Republican presidents nominate for the court. He even went so far as to vote in favor of the doomed nominee Robert Bork.

However, McCain made somewhat of a surprising announcement about his judicial views on Monday. Maybe it was just because he was addressing journalists at the annual Associated Press luncheon, but he offered tentative support for a federal shield law protecting journalists and the right to maintain confidential sources. He said that, though he's had a "hard time deciding," he "would vote yes" if the proposal reaches a vote in the Senate because it has a provision for national security.

"This is why judicial appointments are so important," McCain said.

Well, that's why journalists think judicial appointments are important. I'd bet Gloria Steinem and Pat Robertson would say there's a more important judicial issue...

Anyway, McCain didn't seem to feel like he was overstepping his bounds in legislating to judges, saying he thought the bill "gives them the guidance most judges would like to have."

His support puts him at odds with the President, who threatened to veto the bi-partisan legislation. I guess that's what distinguishes a senatorial candidate for president from a gubernatorial one. McCain seems happier to hand down legislation to "guide" judges that he is to pick out the actual judges himself.

Speaking of senatorial candidates for president, Obama and Clinton are already sponsoring the bill. So, no matter who makes it to the White House next January, us journalists at least have some lip service coming our way. I wonder if that's contingent on us behaving ourselves during the rest of the election cycle?

Thanks to poorly-staffed watchdogs and short attention spans...

I'll be the first to admit it: I am prone to tirades.

My last blog could be fairly described as a rant against the New York Times. One of my objections was their sordid accusations against McCain for his supposedly inappropriate relationship with a female lobbyist. It seems I'm not alone in my criticism of the Gray Lady.

It also seems the accusations have largely rolled off the Maverick's back, even with the specter of a lawsuit looming.

I called up David Morrison at the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform to see what he thought of all this.

"If he has dirty laundry, now is the best time for the story to appear," Morrison said. McCain is mostly secure in his nomination and the Democratic nomination has certainly not been sewn up, so the general election campaigning hasn't yet begun.

Once it does, Morrison said McCain will have a ready response if anyone tries to bring up this story again:

"We've dealt with that; this is old news."

Okay, then. What about this buzz about McCain vs. the FEC? That can't be good...

It seems McCain may have promised to use public funds to get a loan back when he was short on campaign cash. He said if he did poorly in New Hampshire, he would accept public funding (along with the requisite spending limitations) to pay back the loan.

Well, guess what? McCain didn't fail the New Hampshire test. And now everyone wants to give him money! Fantastic!

Except that the FEC might want to hold him to his earlier intentions. However, the FEC can do little except yell at McCain. It seems they don't have enough board members to reach a quorum on the matter.

The esoteric nature of this current bind could go either way for McCain's public image. A protracted, public fight with the FEC sure doesn't look good, even if the commission can't rule one way or the other. But the weirdness of the FEC's inability to answer their own question might mean that most Americans turn off before the issue is resolved.

The Gray Lady turns yellowish

Let me just first acknowledge that I subscribe to two newspapers. Not that those are the only ones that I read, but they are (supposed to be...) on my doorstep every morning. The Chicago Sun-Times, with its cultivated populism gives me the local gossip. I balance my beloved Chicago rag with the generally venerable New York Times. This week, however, I have been distinctly disappointed with its campaign coverage.

First, the NYT reported Obama's "plagiarism" of his pal Gov. Deval Patrick's speech.

In fact, the senator had disclosed the provenience of those remarks previously, but not every time he appropriated them. Gov. Patrick backed up Barack. Personally, I blame Obama's chief strategist David Axelrod, who worked on Patrick's campaign, too. Axelrod should know better, though, being a former newsman and long-time politico.

Then, Sen. Clinton, feeling like she looked a bit petty for attacking Obama, said it was the NYT, not her campaign who exposed the so-called plagiarism. Which is, in a word, a lie(thanks, Mr. Skoglund, for the link).

A lie I would've liked to have read in the NYT. And, let me just offer that I prefer someone who borrows rhetoric instead of just making shit up. At least when were talking about, oh I donno...the leader of the free world?

But it gets worse. Today's front page insinuated the John McCain had a sordid, extra-marital affair with Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist more than 30 years his junior.

First of all: ewwwww. Lobbyists are icky.

Second of all: you needed four reporters to write a muckraking story and you couldn't even get one untainted source to go on record about Iseman?

Third of all: at least four-fifths of the article was about his role in the Keating Five scandal. McCain did his political time for that already, and I'd hope anyone considering voting for him already knows about it. His participation in a decades-old scandal does not make him more likely to sleep with a skeletal blond living in Bud Paxson's pocket.

A NYT editor defended the article saying the information was "nailed down to the New York Times' satisfaction." Well, I'm glad someone's satisfied.

I, however, am not. And I will not be until the Gray Lady goes after her own with the same tenacity with which she is attacking the opposition. Hillary needs a minor miracle or serious political collusion to get the nomination at this point, NYT, and neither one should be coming from you.

"I really love attending Medill School of Journalism, copyright 2008"

Kudos to David Spett, senior at Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern for calling out j-school dean John Lavine for fabricating quotes. Aaaand, for making the rest of us Chicago j-schoolers a little less jealous of the local fame Medillers are privy to. Hah. No, but seriously, folks...

Much has been made of the fact that journalism profs are constantly cautioning against even listening to off-the-record comments, much less publishing them. Really, they should be reserved for life-or-death situations (and for staffers on presidential campaigns, apparently. We'll sell our first-born for a decent Obama leak!).

Levine protests that this isn't that kind of journalism (the "article" appeared in an alumni mag), so he shouldn't be held to the same standards. I guess that's what I find so repulsive about the whole thing. Not only was the "article" written to promote his shameless marriage between journalism and marketing classes, but the "article" is nothing but an advertisement itself!

Gross. This is why I hang up on my alma mater when they call me for money. Not that I was cool enough to attend Northwestern...