EXTRA! EXTRA!

Read all about it. Walter Isaacson, a Time Magazine editor, media gadfly, and general talking head, is making the rounds recently plugging fuzzy ideas about making print media popular again. Time Magazine is the most popular of doctor's waiting room's glossy news pulp. You might also remember Walter as the writer who recently attempted to recast Ben Franklin as a Buck's County Republican. Poor Walter labors under the hilarious notion that journalists should get paid.


He seems to forward the popular notion that upstart bloggers, the evil internet tubes, and citizens with phone camera-thingy's have shined their way into the hearts of news consumers. As unlikely that there are millions of Americans sitting on the crapper everyday with their lap-tops dialed into TMZ and Huffpo instead of the traditional alternatives, Mr. Isaacson naturally has a point. Certainly the music business is in the throws of figuring out a new business model as a result of the same trends that are making the dailies struggle.

However, have the bothered to check out the stuff they've been printing the last twenty years?

I remember writing to CNN in 2006 to point out that George Bush was about as popular as today's equivalent of Costco peanut butter and Angelina Jolie's doppelganger with the eight future wards of the state. CNN's inability to gain ratings in the face of an increasingly progressive-sounding (read: sane) MSNBC tracked perfectly with Faux's steady decline. They no longer should have been fluffing president dumb-ass, but they did anyway and it confused me.

And yet, even this last week, or so, the MSM felt compelled to run this process narrative in which stalwart republicans man-handled Obama, etc., paying absolutely no mind to the mood of the country, and the Presidents effort to avoid food riots at Walmart.

Hey, why don't you guys write about something without the standard, "and what do you think, Mr. Hitler?"