It's fine, so far as it goes. That Obama needs to add more substance is a given. But this story, like most of the MSM coverage, suffers from two-candidate myopia. John Edwards, as just about everyone concedes, has been the leader, for at least a year now, in promoting ideas and programs of real substance. But his ideas get no coverage (until they're adopted by one of the "two candidates"!), with the result that 25 percent of respondents to last week's NY Times/CBS poll said they "didn't know enough" about him to make a choice. (The corresponding numbers for Clinton and Obama were 2 and 8 respectively.) It takes ideas, yes. It also takes somebody paying attention.

I agree with Francis Scalzi that the author is giving the media a pass and shifting blame. Next question: What is anybody going to do about it? Are we going to go on having auctions instead of elections, and letting the talking heads write the script? My radical proposal is that the political parties need to reclaim control of the nominating process -- which is, after all, a Party matter, not something operated by the federal government. Why should the parties let the media, or anyone else, choose their nominees? The media really, really love to hype the role of "independents," and indeed, fewer and fewer people belong to political parties. What does that mean for our nominating process? My suggestion is that the parties ... More »

It gives good depth on what makes John Edwards tick; much of it I knew already (full disclosure: I'm an active Edwards supporter), some was new, and probably most of it will be new to people not paying attention up to now -- judging by a conversation I had just last evening. Edwards' strongest selling point is that he is genuine, and this article supports that.

CNN fell all over itself apologizing to the Republicans for allowing a 43-year veteran who happens to support a Democratic candidate to ask them a question. Shocking! The reporter somehow fails to mention that CNN allowed at least one clearly Republican-biased question on the Democratic debate ("If you are elected, will my taxes go up, the way they always do when Democrats get in?"), or -- much more important -- that one of the questioners on the Democratic debate, a CNN anchor soon to have her own show, is married to a senior Republican advisor, Dan Senor. Media Matters tells all.

Once more, Eric Schlosser gets to the heart (well, the gut) of things. I've been following this story through various worker-friendly sites and blogs, and he's summed it all up very well. A couple Christmases ago, some of us were complaining about the federal Scrooge who was taking away Tiny Tim's crutches (previously provided by Medicaid, but no more). This year it's Burger King. At least Taco Bell (Pepsico) and McDonald's were trying to do the right thing. Maybe we'd better go there this year, and with our money, hand over a letter to the CEO telling him why we're not at BK and asking that the Imokalee workers get their penny back!

I'm just glad to see ANY story on this. I was supposed to go to the rally in Boston and was kept at home by horrible weather; I've been searching for an account of the march in the Globe, the NY Times, the WaPo -- nada. The NBC Nightly News had a ten-second piece and a photo from San Francisco -- to indicate, I suppose, that this was just one of those California crazy things.

I'm something of an "insider" on this issue, since I've been a volunteer op-ed writer for OxfamAmerica and have lobbied my Congressional delegation on the issue as well. The editorial is based on sound information, though sources are not cited (which is quite normal for an editorial). The facts are correct; plenty more could be said, but the writer accurately summarizes the issue. It should be added that the bill works directly against the "localvore" movement by (literally) starving local-food initiatives.

An admirable example of real analytic reporting instead of the usual "X said, Y said." This author took the trouble to weigh the arguments on both sides and put them in context. He adds a "citizen viewpoint," which furnishes a subtle illustration of how the "taxes are bad" propaganda plays well with most people, yet goes on to show how many taken-for-granted services are paid for by taxes. You may think this story is too regional for inclusion, but it has wide resonance, and when a reporter does a really good job instead of the lazy mess we so often see and hear, he deserves to be recognized.

It's a good account of the history of yellow journalism and of hoaxing, but The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are neither of those: they are satire; they represent a clear point of view; and in essence there is nothing "fake" about them in the sense intended by the author. In fact, Jon Stewart remarks from time to time that the facts are funnier than anything he can invent. Example: last week he reported on the Administration's failed attempt to find a "war czar" and the subsequent decision to rename the position "execution manager." As the laughter rolled, Stewart said: "These people are making me obsolete!"

Not "the big picture," because that's not the point. This is an interview with one soldier and gives his perspective. The reporter did a good job of drawing him out and getting him to articulate what his experience has taught him. Moreover, it's not just about the politics of the war; she begins with some of his feelings about how going to war has changed him, made him not at home any more among the people he grew up with. Several filmmakers have focused on this, and it was an important factor in the recent election in Vermont.