The Daily Top Five

For today's reading.

1. Earlier this week, Vice President Cheney's office announced that both of his daughters were expecting children. One daughter is expecting her fifth child with her husband. However, the big "news" is that Mary Cheney, the openly lesbian daughter, is expecting a child. Apparently such news, common place in the rest of the country, is somehow big news because Cheney's dad is teh Vice President, and is causing a debate about gay rights. Why must this be the case?

2. Media bias--well duh, but Chris Lawrence at Outside the Beltway points to a probably different explanation than you may think.

The basic problem I see with this “profit-maximizing” theory is that newspaper readers tend to be of higher socioeconomic status and are more likely to be white than the average citizen–and both groups are significantly more likely to be Republican. Then again, it is possible that Republicans are more tolerant of left-of-center media slant than Democrats are of right-of-center slant, and thus the “ideal” slant in a typical circulation area is left-of-center–not because it best represents reader’s actual political preferences, but because it leads the fewest readers to cancel subscriptions.

A newspaper after all is a business designed to make money.

3. A "growing consensus about the Iraq Study Group report--it sucks" or so says Rick Moran at Right Wing Nut House.

The right hates it because “victory” isn’t mentioned. And because the group gave an honest assessment of what was actually happening in Iraq. And because they want the United States to talk to Syrian cutthroats and Iranian fanatics. And because it calls the President’s policy a failure. And because James Baker is a poopie head.

snip

On the left, they hate the ISG report because they see it as a gigantic conspiracy to deny them the fruits of their electoral victory. And because it doesn’t advocate an immediate withdrawal of forces. And because the word “defeat” isn’t found anywhere in the report. And because it isn’t hard enough on Bush. And because Bush will ignore recommendations that they disagree with too. And because James Baker works for the Bush family and is a poopie head.

So there are two points of consensus, the report sucks and James Baker is a poopie head.

4. Want to get some news that is more accurate and more useful, pick up a business newspaper or publication. Why? According to this post:

I started reading the business press when I was in graduate school. I found it to be generally more unbiased, if you define unbiased in terms of being the reasonable basis for decisions. There is a reason for that. People making investments are making decisons. They are going to put their money where their mouths are and demand a higher level of accuracy. Publications such as "The Nation" or "Mother Jones" (is that still around?) can engage in fancifully flying diatribes that make intuitive sense but are wrong. The business press gets pulled down to earth much more often. They also tend to deal with more practical people.

There are two sorts of prognosticators. Those who predict what will happen and those who have a hand it making it happen. The former are more entertaining; the latter more useful.

Although I don't read the WSJ daily, I do find their news reporting on current events much more accurate and balanced than any other outlet. Their business reporting, obviously is second to none.

5. Tommy Thompson for President in '08? The GOP could do a lot worse.