I'll warn you beforehand that this picture isn't very pretty, so you'll have to click the link below to see it. It's of a dog who was thrown over an overpass on the Atlantic City Expressway. Obviously, tt's rather disturbing...

http://media.philly.com/images/on-jdog29.jpg

I use this image as another example of what's wrong with today's profiteering media.

While this picture of a lifeless puppy is naturally sad and downright disgusting, think for a second about the emotions it evokes:

Disgust. Anger. Contempt. Vengeance.

Keeping those emotions in mind, think about this: when the last time you saw a picture of a killed or wounded American soldier in Iraq?

Most likely, your answer is— never.

This is a key example of the media's priorities: a shot of an abused dog gets front page billing, while at the same time, you've probably haven't seen a single image of the thousands of wounded and killed soldiers during the entire five-year stretch of the Iraq war.

Those graphic images of death and destruction are downright painful to look at. But thus is war. Hiding the grim realities of combat behind family-friendly stories of heroism and sacrifice erode the purpose of news reporting.

Shameful.

Another Media Conundrum

That's a pretty interesting image from Pollster.com. According to their figures, Barack Obama will win the presidency without even breaking a sweat over battleground states like Florida and Ohio.

Yet, broadcast media seem to be unusually harsh towards Obama lately. Why?

Well, if you were a station manager looking to pull in big ratings from 2008 election coverage, would you want viewers to think that one candidate is comfortably ahead of another?

Of course not. Americans love drama. So, broadcast networks try to influence viewers' (and consequently, voters') perceptions of this 2008 race by putting Obama under an especially powerful microscope, in an effort to narrow his lead.

This is the equivalent of a referee calling a ridiculous pass interference call against a winning team in the final minutes of a football game. It allows the trailing team an opportunity to mount a comeback and make the game more exciting.

The funny thing is, all of these poll numbers and colored maps and broadcast media pundits have no direct relation to the true purpose of the 2008 election: for voters to independently choose the best candidate to lead the nation.

Yet, in an effort to grab big ratings and pull in huge advertising dollars for the upcoming sweeps period, networks have no problem skewing the race to favor chaos and controversy. Remember, these same networks are supposed to "serve the public interest."

Instead, networks serve their own interests (money) first; gladly providing disinformation to voters for a few Nielsen points.

So much for democracy. After all, it doesn't make for a very exciting television show.

O'Reilly Ambush

Fox News really needs to cool it with the ambush interviews. Credible news organizations do not have reporters hide behind a corner and disturb public figures while they're walking back from lunch hour.

It's one thing to ambush a public official like a Senator or agency head; they are expected to deal with criticism and scorn on a daily basis. Although ambush interviews in this context may not be the most desirable; they are at least consistent with some iota of journalistic ethos.

However, on tonight's show, O'Reilly's crew ambushed Syracuse University chancellor Nancy Cantor. Yes, while Cantor is somewhat of a public figure due to her status as the head of a major university, the content of the "ambush" was completely uncalled for.

Cantor was being questioned for racially insensitive remarks made by a professor at the university. Mind you, a lower-level professor in a small department, an person that Cantor would probably never directly interact with on purpose in her entire tenure as chancellor. Cantor responded with one line, "it was one man speaking for himself." Yet, the "reporter" kept prodding her with different variations of the same question. Again, Cantor responded with the same line, "it was one man speaking for himself."

Remember that one of the basic ideas of a university is to promote a free exchange of ideas. It's not Nancy Cantor's job to be the speech police. And, especially, it's not Fox's job to harass Cantor on her way to lunch break. Ambush interviews are nothing but cheap ratings spectacles.

Prediction for Tomorrow's WV Primary Coverage

Since Obama's cakewalk in North Carolina and Hillary's bare survival in Indiana, the media have written off Hillary and prematurely declared Obama the Democratic nominee.

That's until tomorrow night.

Yes, Hillary is expected to win West Virginia by abour 25 to 30 percentage points over Obama. Is it too little too late? Absolutely, if you're being rational and looking at the hard facts. However, chances are you don't have 6 hours of news time to fill until Larry King comes on at midnight.

So, be prepared for Chris Matthews to commend a "phenomenal" comeback by Hillary clinton, for Wolf Blitzer to report a "massive" win that puts her right back in the Democratic race alongside Barack, and for Brit Hume to discuss the potential for Hillary to sway a hoard of Superdelegates with her "amazing" win tomorrow night.

And, i'm sure MSNBC and CNN will whip out the cattle prod on all their commentators like Rachel Maddow, Pat Buchanan, David Gergen, and Jeffrey Toobin-- although I'm sure they know full well that the race is over and Obama has an insurmountable lead, they will still play the "what if" game. It's just what naturally happens when the phenonemon of groupthink and the misery of overblown cable news coverage combine.

After all, it's no fun giving Obama a coronation ceremony for 6 hours. Viewers are looking for drama, suspense, and action. And that's exactly what cable news will give them tomorrow night; even though the legend presented by the network talking heads couldn't be further from reality.

Cable Primary Coverage

Well, I have to say Daily Show nailed it on this one:



My thoughts exactly! As for other analysis of Tuesday night's primary coverage, let me rank the networks in order:

#1 MSNBC-- The only network who treats the primary elections as "presidentiaL", not a sporting event or a potential communist overthrow of American government. Their analysis from knowledgable and objective political reporters instead of annoying talking heads advocating for one candidate or the other made their coverage the most enlightening and entertaining to watch.

(By the way, while we're talking about MSNBC, ya gotta love Chris Matthews' new hair!...)



#2 CNN-- Well, CNN was just this side of bearable. I feel like CNN is trying to bring some young, powerful, fresh approach to political coverage, but it just doesn't work. Their election theme music consists of the same 3-second repetition of drums and cymbals over and over and over again. The screen is overloaded with cheesy graphics; the set is packed with too many charts and graphs to comprehend anything at all. Sometimes I feel like CNN is a math class rather than election coverage. Oh, and John King really needs to chill out with his magical map, a TV technological innovation that'll go down alongside the NHL on FOX glowing puck for useless and irritating technology.



#3 Fox News- Well, this one wasn't so hard. It was really depressing to watch Fox News. Their dreary, red, pulsating set makes you feel like you're watching a pending nuclear launch rather than incoming election results. While the other networks featured a broad range of commentators, from all walks of life, Fox News just used their own in-house stereotypical stuffy old white guys-- Hume, Rove, Hannity, Colmes, Smith-- to report. I felt like I was being punished for the 10 minutes I watched Fox's coverage. It was too much to bear.

Ah, the Joys of Brower!

I've never seen such a mass conglomeration of confused, lost, helpless-looking people than today at Brower Commons- where about 1,000 parents of incoming freshmen were herded like cattle into the worst dining hall on campus, while their loving children got their first session of brainwashing from the RU faculty.

I mean, you would think that half of these parents were stuck in the middle of the Gobi Desert, desperately searching for an oasis or a stray dramadary by looking at their facial expressions! Walking around with a tray in their hands for the first time since they were in high school, they took terse and hesitant steps; their eyes either squinted in confusion, or plastered wide open due to a combination of panic and torment. Their heads constantly shifted around, analyzing the environment, and perhaps looking for another person over 45 to latch onto. Some try especially hard to not make eye contact with anyone else, for no one can be trusted in the dark and dreary dungeon that is Brower Commons. Others do the opposite- analyzing current Rutgers students like a CIA operative, scanning for potential future threats to their daughter's dignity.

Quite an entertaining experience to say the least. If you missed it today, there is still another Parents' Day on Saturday May 10th. Take a seat, grab a cup of coffee, and laugh along as mature intelligent human beings turn into Neanderthals for an hour. (By the way, what a day for the Psychology department! How can they not be doing experiments on this?)

And, as a side note: brilliant job by the Rutgers Orientation Committee to have all 1,000 parents herded up and prodded over to Brower Commons at the same time, creating lines that literally ended up outside the main entrance (if you don't show up at Brower by 11:45 AM like I did, then forget about it. I just beat the mob by a minute). Ever heard of a staggered schedule, Rutgers Orientation people?

Hillary on O'Reilly Factor

While I'm at it, I just watched the first 10 minutes of Hillary's interview with Bill O'Reilly. All I have to say is-- man did Democrats screw up big time in voting for Obama. Even though O'Reilly is peppering Hillary with hostile questions, she is still as poised, confident, and sensible as ever. She actually looks like she's kind of enjoying it!

Meanwhile, Barack seemed like he was caught completely off-guard by the softer questions of Chris Wallace on Sunday, not to mention his complete destruction by Reverend Wright in the succeeding days.

Please Superdelegates!! Switch to Hillary!! NOW!!