Radio Sweethearts

Remember how excited I was two weeks ago when “On the Media” managed to go a whole hour without mentioning the election once? They must have noticed that they were slipping in their somewhat obsessive coverage, because this week, every single segment is somehow election related.

The show opens with a sexy segment on John McCain. Sexiness isn’t usually the GOP’s most noticeable trait - that is, until someone gets caught in a scandal. The New York Times ran a story last Thursday about McCain’s alleged relations with a lobbyist based on information from anonymous sources.

If there’s anything that the Republican party dislikes more than McCain, it’s the New York Times. The party’s backlash over the Times story is uniting people in a way that McCain can only dream of. Even Rush Limbaugh took a break from the McCain bashing to yell at the NYT.

As the Times‘ Bill Keller points out, sources who are willing to speak on the record are best, but information from anonymous sources is crucial to journalism’s calling to be a government watchdog. It’s the journalist’s responsibility to alert the public that the information in the story has come from anonymous sources. We are, sadly, in an age where the public’s opinion of journalists is hovering somewhere between lawyer and used car salesman.

Wrapping up the segment, Brooke lays some serious smack. It’s so bad ass. Though, I would kind of rather see her deliver this message in person, wearing a viking helmet, carrying a battle axe, standing outside the Times building. She says:

“The Times seems to have decided that compelling political journalism must go beyond facts and airtight conclusions, that important insights come from just telling stories and letting the public fill in the blanks. But those blanks leave a great deal of space for error and confusion.

The story ran on Thursday under the headline “For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses its Own Risks.” The same could be said for The New York Times itself.”

Hey NYT, I’m pretty sure you just got served.

If questionably sourced stories didn’t get you excited, how about some possibly plagiarized rhetoric?

The segment opens with a snippet of an Obama campaign speech. I, like a lot of other people, tend to stop whatever I’m doing when I hear Obama talking. I like to think I’m above all that, but I’m totally not. The man is an incredible orator.

Bob agrees, trying to contain his glee while saying things about Obama’s speech-delivering abilities. He’s just waiting to get to that crucial punch line - “he has become the Democratic frontrunner in the race for the presidency – unless something should bring him suddenly down, like, say, a charge of plagiarism.”

He sounds so proud of himself every time he delivers an intro like this. It’s adorable. I want to pat him on the head. Ahem. Back to the charges at hand.

Last week, the Clinton campaign accused Obama of stealing rhetoric from Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick. Clinton called it “change you can Xerox.” Though the dig was perfectly, delightfully snarky, it was also wrong. For the record, Obama has credited Patrick in the past for the “just words!” segment of his speeches.

Ugh. OK, y’all, seriously. I have to cut into the recap to say this: Journalists, please stop with all the joking. It’s one thing write cleverly. It’s another entirely to read those words in a manner that suggests that you’re acutely aware of your own cleverness. We’re not going to give you a treat. We’re probably not even going to laugh. Just stop.

OK. All better.

Political speech writers throughout history have borrowed words and phrases from those who came before them. As Bob points out, if this were happening in literature, academia, or journalism, it would be a huge no-no.

But in politics, most bets are off. As guest Ted Widmer says, “Democracy and liberty and freedom, there are only so many concepts out there and it’s hard to always think of new ways of talking about them.”

Bob asks Widmer what he thinks about Obama’s rallying cry of “Yes we can!,” Widmer totally steals my heart by saying in the most dry tone, full of accountant-like precision “Well, it’s a much better slogan than “No, we can’t.”

Bob admits aloud that he wishes he had said that. I’m glad he didn’t. Bob reminds me of this dude who had a crush on me in high school. It would have never worked out - our senses of humor totally didn’t match, but bless his heart, he tried to make me laugh. Maybe what I said about journalists should be extended to boys in general.

Speaking of joking, this election is proving a bit difficult for comedians. In the past, when democracy was run by a bunch of middle-aged to elderly white dudes, the comedy was easy.

Editorial cartoonist Nick Anderson notes that in the past, all he had to do was slap some big monkey ears on W., and “draw Dick Cheney like a cave troll” and his work was done (though, Anderson notes that he didn’t make W. look like a monkey - God did).

As the remaining candidates for the Democratic nomination are a bi-racial dude and a woman, making fun of them is going to have to be done with some sensitivity.

Even “Saturday Night Live” is trying to play nice. There’s one problem, though - they need an Obama. A segment of the show is played - it’s a Halloween party hosted by the Clintons - and Obama plays himself hilariously.

“SNL’s” Seth Meyers notes that they’ve finally found someone, but for a while were considering making Maya Rudolph play the senator. Which would have been hilarious.

There’s a brief retrospective on the comedians who impersonated presidents past, and it’s on to a segment on typeface and campaign signs.

It’s really interesting, and Matthew is going to write more about it. He’s a big font dork (until I met him, I wasn’t sure you could be such a thing), and can do better justice to the story than I can, because he actually knows what he’s talking about.

- Matthew here, and despite Kerry’s insistance, I’m going to expand this bit into its own post. Except to say that there’s more from Sam Berlow of The Font Bureau than Brooke got out of him. Check the Font Bureau’s blog, “Type 101.”

Even though the dude tries awkwardly to remember the term “semiserif,” awkwardly drawing the McCain logo as a metaphor for the candidate’s moderate reputation, he seems to know his stuff, but again, more later.

Also, don’t you think that The Font Bureau’s website is kinda ugly? Kerry? -

Thus concludes the election coverage for this week. Now on to tortured cows and clubbed baby seals. I’m serious. Listen, and see if you don’t tear up.

Before the last segment on the New York Times and its coverage of Fidel Castro’s rise to power (which, to be honest, I was kind of bored by), it’s OTM Mail Bag Time!

- Matthew again. You were bored by the Castro piece? I thought it was great! I changed my mind about pursuing a journalistic career only when I realized that Herbert L. Matthews was not the ideal reporter. Sad, sad. On to the Mail Bag Time. -

Bob seems to be reading all of the emails that defend his coverage of the Republican walk out, while Brooke dishes the tough love. Oh - I spoke to soon. Bob reads a few more that tear his coverage to pieces. One listener politely asks that Bob “stop camouflaging [his] self-righteous liberal political comments.”

The email then goes on to question Bob’s ability as a media critic, and to suggest that he should be the subject of media criticism instead of the other way around.

Oh, angered letter-writer. I wish you knew about Radio Sweethearts.

This week’s recap was written by Kerry, and edited for all kinds of errors (including plagiarism!) - and interrupted, briefly - by Matthew.