“It boils down to if you like Tiger [or not]. We all have close friends or associates that we will forgive for anything. ‘Don’t worry-nobody is perfect.’ And then we all know/work with folks where we are waiting for them to screw-up and pounce all over them. This humanity creeps into an editor’s decisions. Where was the media protectionism for Kate Hudson when the New York tabloids pounced on her, where was the mainstream media honor on that one- and all she did was openly date a guy who was single. And if Tiger gets 100 mil a year for being an endorser/spokesperson, why can’t a gal get a few bucks for her pictures/story? My point is that I have never seen this mainstream media reluctance for the story with others. Tiger is like a baseball player who has hit a number of easy home runs off the media- then the tabloids came in and threw him some brushback/knockdown pitches. How come I never say a story angle such as a fire hydrant getting knoked out of service poses a problem if your house is on fire? The media built his reputation and looked the other way at his faults. Where was the outrage when he threw his golf club into the crowd a while back-any other player in another sports would have been suspended but the mainstream media looked the other way. How about more coverage of Tiger being called out for not being socially responsible with his money, talk to Jim Brown about that. Most of the media likes Tiger so they DON’T want to go after him.”
–Paul T. O’Connor
Ryan Chittum praised the Bloomberg profile of Congressional Oversight Committee head Elizabeth Warren, which elicited some enthusiastic, if not humorous, commenter support.
“God, I love this woman! I’m retired and semi-handicapped, so I watch a lot of CSPAN, and I’ve seen her testify or take part on panels a number of times, and her intelligence and earnestness shine. I say let her and Sheila Baer run the economy and let Larry and Tim go back home!”
On Knowing Where the Wind Blows, With or Without Weathermen
Fallout from “ClimateGate”—the leaked e-mails from University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, purporting that the immediacy of concern about global warming may have been forced—prompted a lengthy and thorough analysis by CJR’s Curtis Brainard about the objectivity of climate coverage.
“I like the logic on display here. Emails deleted in response to an FOI request are no biggie (and who cares what the emails said anyway), but emails released by a whistleblower are a “hack” and “theft.”
“Real Climate may have been surreptitiously and dishonestly barring any opinions from its “neutral” site that went against the AGW “consensus (even to the point of deleting reader comments), but they’re still the best place to look for info. What??
“You guys are in denial. The upstart of all this is that people no longer trust AGW-promoting “scientists” and that goes triple for anyone or thing remotely connected to Climategate. So goodbye Jones, Real Climate, Mann, “value added” data, etc, etc.”
“Kudos on a surprisingly even handed article on this ongoing story.
“Couple of points. Although the emails have received the most attention, the data release was not strictly limited to emails. Also included were chat logs and raw source code and the code is one of the more interesting, and under reported aspects of the story. Programmer Eric Raymond took a look at the code and concluded that Mann’s now famous hockey stick was hardcoded into the program so that no matter what data was entered, the results would always show a similar significant warming trend. This follows a critical report issued by the National Academy of Sciences Edward Wegman who found significant issues with the statistical methodology used by Mann and co. It’s no wonder why the CRU and its affiliates were so hesitant to release the source code for their models.