I’m trying to do a bit of a redesign on the site from an alien computer, so bear with me if things get a little weird from time to time during the next few days.

1) The reporters have to work. 2) Unlike the New york Times and, say, Judith Miller, local papers can fire the likes of Fred Lucas if they continually file patent tripe. Staying at a Comfort Inn just three blocks from the convention, after having traveled to New York via bus, Lucas said his paper . . . → Read More: Why local papers cover the conventions better than national ones

1) The reporters have to work. 2) Unlike the New york Times and, say, Judith Miller, local papers can fire the likes of Fred Lucas if they continually file patent tripe. Staying at a Comfort Inn just three blocks from the convention, after having traveled to New York via bus, Lucas said his paper . . . → Read More: Why local papers cover the conventions better than national ones

In addition to the seven minutes of fame I earned for bad-mouthing Slate’s Jack Shafer in a letter posted on Jim Romenesko’s Media News, I got what I figure to be at least that much when Eric Alterman linked to a Slate bulletin board post of mine from his MSNBC column. That particular post . . . → Read More: 7+8=15

In addition to the seven minutes of fame I earned for bad-mouthing Slate’s Jack Shafer in a letter posted on Jim Romenesko’s Media News, I got what I figure to be at least that much when Eric Alterman linked to a Slate bulletin board post of mine from his MSNBC column. That particular post . . . → Read More: 7+8=15

Columbia Journalism Review’s Campaign Desk blog recently added a comments board. It’s getting hardly any action. A week or so ago I wrote the guy who runs the site to ask whether he had any plans to promote the forums; he didn’t, primarily because everyone is too busy writing about depressing stupid press tricks. . . . → Read More: Singles for democratic socialism

Campaign Desk has a bit on Republican delegates looking for an alternative to trolling for the press using weird hats. Three women calling themselves “Babes for Bush” got a few seconds of air time from Sean Hannity. I thought to myself, “I can do better.” And I have. “Let’s Roll!” Infant activists get it . . . → Read More: Weird hats in the Big Apple? Nuh-uh.

The Washington Post quotes Bush* from an interview he did with Time Magazine (the online rendition is available only to subscribers) describing the invasion of Iraq as a “catastrophic success.” This would seem most closely to equate with a Pyrrhic vcitory, but I suspect that’s not how the president intended it. Bush also acknowledged . . . → Read More: Bush* pushes the conceptual envelope once again

A couple of months ago the influential private intelligence firm, Stratfor, suggested that Russia was prepared to deploy as many as 40,000 troops to assist the US in Iraq. Today, an essay in the Power and Interest News Report (PINR) examines the pros and cons of the idea from a Russian standpoint. (The general . . . → Read More: Russia to the rescue?

Marshall has a piece in the Washington Monthly fleshing out some of the details on the burgeoning espionage and subversion scandal surrounding Doug Feith’s Pentagon office. It’s pretty remarkable. The headline on the piece is “Iran Contra II?” but if it’s headed where the story implies, it’ll make Iran-Contra look like small potatoes.