or Powell's or me• • •
"Mike and Jon, Jon and Mike—I've known them both for years, and, clearly, one of them is very funny. As for the other: truly one of the great hangers-on of our time."—Steve Bodow, head writer, The Daily Show
•
"Who can really judge what's funny? If humor is a subjective medium, then can there be something that is really and truly hilarious? Me. This book."—Daniel Handler, author, Adverbs, and personal representative of Lemony Snicket
•
"The good news: I thought Our Kampf was consistently hilarious. The bad news: I’m the guy who wrote Monkeybone."—Sam Hamm, screenwriter, Batman, Batman Returns, and Homecoming
May 25, 2006
What Does And Does Not Fascinate David Broder
Perhaps you've already seen this column by David Broder, Dean of the Washington Press Corps, in which he explains what he's interested in:
But for all the delicacy of the treatment, the very fact that the Times had sent a reporter out to interview 50 people about the state of the Clintons' marriage and placed the story on the top of Page One was a clear signal -- if any was needed -- that the drama of the Clintons' personal life would be a hot topic if she runs for president.
Now, here's Broder on Meet the Press last November, explaining what he's NOT interested in:
MR. RUSSERT: David Broder, is it possible for official Washington--the president, Democratic leaders, Republican leaders--to arrive at common ground, a consensus position on Iraq?MR. DAVID BRODER: It's possible, Tim, but they won't get there by arguing about who did what three years ago. And this whole debate about whether there was just a mistake or misrepresentation or so on is, I think, from the public point of view largely irrelevant. The public's moved past that.
Of course, by "the public's moved past that," Broder meant "I've moved past that." Just days after he said this, a New York Times poll found that 80% of Americans felt it was "very" (56%) or "somewhat" (24%) important for Congress to investigate Bush's use of intelligence on Iraq.
So to sum up Broder's worldview:
Bill Clinton's Wang And What It's Doing Right This Second: HOT! HOT! HOT!Posted at May 25, 2006 08:55 AM | TrackBackLies That Have Killed Tens Of Thousands: EH. THIS MAKES ME SLEEPY.
This seems reasonable to me; Broder is clearly saying that if something appears in the "New York Times," it clearly indicates public interest in that topic, *unless* it is a directly report on levels of public interest, in which case it can be dismissed.
Posted by: Mollie at May 25, 2006 11:55 AMWell, duh. That's because Bill Clinton's Wang probably is in the country illegally, filling a job that really should belong to a native-born American worker.
Posted by: Aaron Datesman at May 25, 2006 12:01 PMI too was puzzled by Broder's column today, almost as puzzled as I was by the NYT article that I didn't see. I thought the Times was a news organization!
Posted by: Ralph at May 25, 2006 12:41 PM
Broder + Buzz = Bullshit
And that's why we have "commentators" and columnists. Used to be the job of the guy at the end of the bar in the neighborhood tavern. Who dreamts there was big money in it as a talking head?
Posted by: donescobar at May 25, 2006 01:00 PMWho's to say if we don't keep a careful eye on Bill Clinton's wang it wouldn't kill tens of thousands?
I'm not prepared to take that risk.
Posted by: BRG at May 25, 2006 02:20 PMBRG, keeping an eye on Bill Clinton's wang so that it doesn't kill and maim thousands sounds like a job for the Department of Homeland Security, Division of Wang Control.
Perhaps if there aren't enough agents ready for that assignment, we can offer instant citizenship to non-citizens, for a 4 year tour of duty.
OK, I think that's just about enough for the time being.
Posted by: wkmaier at May 25, 2006 02:27 PMperhaps Broder is just feeling a little forlorn, what with having been an employee of the Clinton administration and never having been invited to any wanging parties, or even (at least!) being offered a "w" key on the way out.
Posted by: Jonathan Versen at May 25, 2006 04:08 PMSeems like Broder's in search of the Wang of Mass Distraction. God help us all if he finds it.
Posted by: A1 at May 25, 2006 04:19 PMyou'd think with these values Broder would be making a really big money as a tv exec or something...
Posted by: sam at May 25, 2006 05:11 PMAmerica just lost 1-0 to Morocco in soccer.
Avenge our brave boys!
Destroy their WGS (Weapons of Goal Scoring)!!
Oops. Sorry.
Posted by: donescobar at May 25, 2006 06:05 PMdonescobar - don't worry. Australia just beat Greece 1-0 in Melbourne (the biggest Greek city in the world, actually, after Athens).
I think our players were just fetta and stronger than the Greek team.
Posted by: floopmeister at May 25, 2006 08:53 PMArsenal, The Gunners, line up for important games often without one Brit starting! Or, look at my old stomping ground, Swiss soccer--almost all the forwards in their "Super League" are from Africa or Serbo-Croatia. Nordic men just can't score.
