Michael Moore vs Jon Stewart

This article recently made the rounds through pundit fandom and sparked a few arguments, as I'm sure the author intended it to:

Just as one is likely to hear criticism of [Michael] Moore in liberal circles or carefully qualified appreciation, i.e. “I like him, but I wish he wasn’t so strident,” one will never hear any blasphemy spoken against the idol of modern, urbanite, educated liberal culture, Jon Stewart.

It’s impossible to understand the hatred of Moore from the cocktail party and faculty lounge scene of the liberal establishment without also understanding the same politically impotent group’s love for Jon Stewart. Understanding the juxtaposition of Moore and Stewart reveals the true depths of the failure and soullessness of modern American liberalism.

Personally I think Stewart is much more likeable than Moore, but I found myself nodding my head at the observation that many Daily Show fans don't like embarrassing displays of emotion or undignified tactics - things like LGBT activists glitter-bombing anti-gay politicians.

Outing the Ringers

The usual clever take from Jay Smooth on media coverage of Occupy Wall Street:

The Rise of Maddow

Fresh from winning an Emmy for her coverage of Afghanistan, Rachel Maddow is on the cover of the Hollywood Reporter, promoting her show, her cheap blazers and her upcoming cameo in the new George Clooney movie.

It's like Fangirl Christmas.

A few things, though.

Whenever there's a big feature about Rachel, the writer is almost certain to emphasise how nice and friendly she is. Which is true, I'm sure; and it is good to see a cable news host who is civil with her guests even when she disagrees with them.

But just because she doesn't yell or call people names doesn't mean she won't skewer her guests to the wall when the situation requires it, as Rand Paul can tell you:

Sports vs Science

With all the Rugby World Cup coverage going on at the moment, which I'm more interested in than I thought I'd be, I keep coming back to a point made by physicist Sir Paul Callaghan on Radio New Zealand's "Mediawatch" (at about the 22 minute mark):

You could imagine what would happen if a sports commentator made a mistake about a score, or the track record of a particular player. They'd be deluged with complaints, because they're dealing with an expert audience out there, and sports commentators treat their audience with respect.

And that's why sports commentators are some of the smartest people in the media. They're the ones who have to think on their feet, and they've got to get it right. That's kind of a benchmark. If we could all be as good as sports reporters and commentators, we'd really have a fantastic media.

What he doesn't say explicitly is that we also need an "expert audience" for science - people who are interested in and educated about science issues - which underlines the need for good science education.

Daily Fail

I love this - it reveals so much about tabloid journalism:

The Daily Mail made Twitter headlines for all the wrong reasons this morning, after incorrectly reporting Knox had lost her high-profile appeal and would remain in jail. 

[...] It read: "As Knox realised the enormity of what Judge Hellman was saying, she sank into her chair sobbing uncontrollably while her family and friend hugged each other in tears."

The website even managed to find "sources" to comment on the false verdict.

"Prosecutors were delighted with the verdict and said that 'justice has been done'," the Mail reported, "although they said on a 'human factor it was sad two young people would be spending years in jail'."

I wonder if any of the Daily Mail reporters dreamed of being crime novelists when they grew up.