It’s gotten to the point that the rumors themselves have become an more important news story than what they might be about or whether they’re true.

If the rumors are the news, how do you report them while making sure that Paterson’s “alleged misconduct” doesn’t get shortened to “misconduct?” Well, we just use the word “alleged.”

The difference between "alleged misconduct" and "misconduct" is that we KNOW Fleetwood Mac all slept with one another in a bed made of pure cocaine.

But this story is more complicated than that. Gov. Paterson hasn’t been accused of anything. His ‘alleged misconduct’ hasn’t been alleged yet – the rumors are merely that the New York Times is going to publish a story laying those rumors bare.

What that means is this: David Paterson, governor of the state of New York, is under fire for rumored alleged misconduct.

WTF, news media, WTF?

At least “All Things Considered” has the decency and wherewithal to report the story as it is and investigate how it got that way. It even includes this truly classic public radio line: “This truly is the scandal that dare not say its name — because nobody really knows what the heck it is.”

It’s a perfect walk on the balance beam between reporting rumors and sussing out why we love rumors.

The lesson I’ve learned from NPR’s story? More questions.

• Can we please wait for something to become a story before making these premature ejaculations of reportage into a completely new story?
• Or has the New York Times succumbed to the same pathetic tactic of terrible Hollywood blockbusters and cult TV shows?
• Are they building undeserved hype in the name of selling papers?
• Are they trying to sex up their political coverage?

I know times are rough for newspapers, but I’m not so sure that hiking up the Gray Lady’s skirt is the way to fix it.

Gross expected him to be as outrageous as his reputation (and his character on “30 Rock”). Instead, when he wanted to be vulnerable and talk about his painful childhood, she took that as a signal to keep asking him painful questions and then gasping in disbelief when he got choked up and began to cry.

At one point, it even sounds like she’s laughing at him for crying – which, even though I’m willing to believe Gross’ laughter was largely a manifestation of discomfort, sounds remarkably cruel.

Out of respect for Morgan, and out of distaste for Gross’ handling of the interview, I’m not going to link to that story. You know how to find it, anyway.

Instead, what I am going to link to is the greatest “Fresh Air” interview ever. So great, in fact, that I can’t actually link you to audio from the interview on NPR.org. Or a transcript. This is Terry Gross’ great lost interview.

So great that when the interviewee asks Terry Gross, “Don’t you love this interview? Tell me the truth,” she does tell the truth: “Well, I think it’s kind of a drag, because you’re making speeches, and being intentionally obnoxious.”

And then she erupts in nervous laughter as he continues hitting on her, insulting everyone and offering some tips to give NPR some serious style.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you – unearthed direct from the fiery vaults of Hell – all 26 harrowing minutes, 54 incendiary seconds of: Terry Gross of “Fresh Air” versus:

GENE

CHAIM EVER LOVING WITZ?! WHAT HAVE YOU BEEN EATING?!

SIMMONS!

(Of rock band Kiss, as if you didn’t already know.)

Seriously, it’s amazing, and will explain this post’s title in more detail than you ever cared for.

He’s not holding back this week. Texas is changing some of its scientific education standards in such a way as to further confuse the debate between whether or not creationism should be taught in schools alongside evolution.

I’ll leave it to Bob’s piece to explain exactly what happened, but it seems to me to be a step neither forward nor back for either side – though both are celebrating it as both a victory and a crushing blow.

I love that someone quoted in a news blurb excerpted in the story is railing about his ‘scientific’ ‘proof’ that calls evolution into question – and it doesn’t require ‘mathematics’ or ‘experts.’

Dude’s “scientific proof” is probably something completely irrelevant. He probably believes that accepting Jesus into your heart is evidence that the earth is only 10,000 years old.*

Maybe he’s showing bias, maybe it’s just that the creationists are wrong (and a bit douchey about it), but when Bob’s talking to the anti-evolutionist Casey Luskin, at the Discovery Institute, he meets the guy’s “I’m right because I know I’m right, and I’m not going to listen to the other side because I found five people with degrees who are on my side” swagger with the following:

Are you aware of the fallacy of favorable enumeration? It says that you find a handful of examples that support your premise, and you focus on them to the exclusion of the vast preponderance of circumstances that don’t support your premise.  . . . That’s called cherry picking.

Poor Luskin’s comeback is nothing but a bunch of yelling, paranoiac, Alex Jones bluster. He knows that Bob is right. That the whole argument is nothing but cherry picking. You can’t say that it’s not because it’s plain fact.

PWNED.

It’s gratifying to hear, it really is.

This week’s very short recap was written by a very tired Matthew, and edited by Kerry.

If by “edited” you mean “wondered about, while she was out drinking beer and playing foosball with friends.” Not that I’m jealous.

*For the record, I don’t have a problem if you like Jesus – I’m only saying that belief in God is not proof of a young Earth.

I say that I saw this coming, but the actual announcement of the closing comes as something of a suckerpunch.

The news comes as so much of a suckerpunch that I need to emphasize my editorial independence on this one: What follows is Matthew’s opinion only,  does not even remotely represent Kerry’s opinion, and was written without her knowledge or consent.

Edit: Immediately after posting this last night, I realized I didn’t want it up here. You can still read the post, over on my own blog.

Apparently, Denby’s central problem was  with the anonymity of online snark.

Apparently, Denby thinks that it’s dangerous for people to say mean things to each other without signing their names.

Apparently, Denby also changes his definitions of “snark,” “satire,” and “irony” according to whether he likes the instance or not.

Because, you know, this “satire” Denby likes so much never offended anyone.

It’s a matter of taste, honestly, this distinction. Yes, much snark online does derive from a sense of meanness. A lot of it is built to tear down.

Denby’s complaints about how snark is just “hazing on the page” miss the mark. That hazing on the page is not snark, it is merely hazing on the page.

Snark comes from somewhere else. Occassionally – think Kerry and I, think McSweeney’s or Pitchfork – actual discussion, actual affection can be passed back and forth through snark and its apparent meanness. Yes, there is a bit of irony in doing that, I’m sure Denby would point that out, but it’s not strict irony. It usually lies more in exaggerating the accepted truth.

All that aside, David Denby’s mom is so old, her Social Security number is 3.

That didn’t happen this week. I lost my job Saturday.

Valentine’s day is a rough day to lose your job. Sunshine, flowers, chocolates, warmth (at least in Tennessee – it was beautiful here), and pesky little baby angels everywhere, and then I have to go home and explain to Kerry why I’m back early.

I will always take comfort, however, in knowing that I didn’t exactly have the worst Valentine’s day ever. That most dubious of honors goes to one of the best writers in recent memory.

On Valentine’s Day, 1989, the Ayatollah Khomeini issued an edict calling for the death of Salman Rushdie, author of the wonderful Magical Realist novel, “The Satanic Verses.”

There is, of course, note of this on OTM, but it does feel like the story’s real importance – dealing with freedom of expression, and how governments from separate nations respect or disrespect each other’s rights, policies, and decisions. Ultimately, I’m appalled that neither the government of the United Kingdom – where Rushdie lived at the time – or of India – his native country – stood up for Rushdie against the Ayatollah, who lead Iran, a completely separate nation.

I like the interview Bob does with Rushdie’s lawyer, Geoffrey Robertson – who points out the hypocrisy of the British government re: blasphemy laws. It’s a shame somebody on the OTM staff didn’t embed the right audio in the transcript page. The story’s all I want to point out this week, and I can’t. Until somebody fixes it.

So I’ll leave you with the comment I left on the story (click on it to view it full size):

Friday’s episode would have required Brooke and Bob to be present during New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day in order to produce a truly new and interesting episode, so they re-broadcast one of the best episodes from last year, wherein the intrepid Brooke Gladstone journeys into the mysterious and potentially deadly world that is Chinese media.

And, in keeping with grand Radio Sweethearts tradition, when “On the Media” repeats, we delve into our vast archives and come up gasping, holding aloft our truest and most valuable prize: our original post from that self-same episode.

So, presented once again for your reading pleasure:

OTM Recap, 6/20: Brooke Gladstone, our little China girl

Bob gets a break this week, so this week, we get all Brooke all the time. Which is kind of cool, because she’s in China checking up on the branding of China on the world stage, especially in the leadup to the Olympics.

To be completely honest, I’ve kind of tuned out China coverage since the Sichuan earthquake last month. It was bad, as in hard to listen to, considering that I was about to move to the edge of the New Madrid fault line.

Thankfully, given the nature of “On the Media,” we don’t have to worry about being brought to tears by earthquake stories. We have to worry about being brought to tears by stories of reporters experiencing the earthquake.

But we don’t have to worry much.

Mercifully, Brooke seems to keep mostly to Chinese media’s efforts to identify the nation as, in Brooke’s words, “a modern player on the world stage.”

Maybe the most interesting example of this is the Chinese boomtown of Shenzhen, which, in 1979, was designated a “special economic zone,” or a testing ground for Chinese capitalism. As a result, the erstwhile fishing village has become what Brooke calls the “boomingest” of China’s boomtowns.

In fact, its metropolitan area, which it shares with Hong Kong, is the third largest in China.

In Shenzhen, Brooke talks with Xu Xiao Mei, a woman who moved to Shenzhen to make a living working at a mineral water factory, and who made the move from that job to hosting a mildly feminist evening talk show, the name of which translates to “At Night You’re Not Lonely.”

Xu Xiao Mei laments the changing of Shenzhen’s economic climate, as when she started, “There was no so called “elite audience” back then. People were pretty much the same. Then, people rode bicycles and took buses back and forth to work.

“Now more and more of them own private cars.”

As a result of this changing demographic, a show like Xu Xiao Mei’s, which catered to the average listener, doesn’t get the advertising budget it needs, because advertisers want to advertise to the ‘elite’ audiences who own or can afford their own cars, along with other luxuries.

Next is a story with the rather bland title “Journalism with Chinese Characteristics.” It starts with the fairly excellent transition of noting that the Communist government also laments the rise to power of a Chinese upper class.

Brooke notes the government’s response, saying “in 2002, Propaganda Chief Li Changchun announced a new approach to media control, called the Three Closenesses, namely, closeness to reality, closeness to the masses and closeness to real life.

“Maybe that’s why,” Brooke continues, “Yang Jinlin’s Hong Kong based TV news show is allowed to air in the Mainland.”

But he has to jump through hoops to keep himself on the air in the mainland. He may well get shut down if he mentions Tibet, Taiwan, Tiananmen, or Falun Gong.

But sometimes, the Chinese government knows how to surprise. Again, Brooke:

The Chinese authorities loosen and tighten their hold on the media in response to the diplomatic climate and the political wind. And every once in a while, the ground shifts right under them and they lose their grip entirely. That’s what happened last month.

Wait. I know I promised no earthquake. I didn’t pay enough attention. And I would have just glossed over it, but is that a Bob Garfield School of Metaphor and Cliché lesson I see? Let’s call attention to it.

And every once in a while, the ground shifts right under them and they lose their grip entirely.

But it’s not just Brooke saying stupid things about the Sichuan earthquake that are supposed to pass as clever.

The Kissinger Institute’s Joshua Ramo gets into the act, too, saying “And it was an earthquake not only in the physical sense of what happened in Sichuan but in the sense that it took everything up in Beijing and, like in any earthquake, it shook it.”

At least it’s not as bad as Elvis week here. I anticipate at least four phone calls from friends back in Indiana thinking it would be clever to ask me if the whole city is “all shook up” over the void left by Presley. I can feel the tears welling already.

One more note about this story before I get fed up and move on: When there is background chatter to set the scene of an editorial meeting at the Bejing-based business magazine, “Caijing,” the transcript notes it as “[HUBBUB/LAUGHTER/OVERTALK].”

I think I may have found a new idea for a tattoo.

There’s also the story, “China Vision,” about how the world sees China (a faded, backlit photo of the Great Wall taken during the Mao era behind the buffet, most likely), and how that’s probably wrong. There’s culture. There’s art.

I picture the entirety of China being a whiny, emo middle schooler at a party, arms crossed standing with a foot against the back wall. “If only they knew who I really was,” says China, “then the girls would like me and want to dance.”

I can relate, on a deeply personal level, to that vision of China.

And then, there’s Brooke’s discussion of the Chinese novel, “Wolf Totem,” which Brooke quite awesomely describes as “drenched in the blood of marmots, sheep, horses, of wolves that have been disemboweled, drowned and consumed by thick, sucking swarms of mosquitoes.”

When we first listened, Kerry and I could have sworn there was something in this story about teenagers having sex with wolves, in order to bring democracy and freedom. But, sadly, I couldn’t find it.

This week’s recap was written by Matthew and edited, very loosely and forgivingly, by Kerry, who, on our first listen to this episode, could have sworn “Wolf Totem” was about teenagers having sex with wolves in order to bring democracy and freedom.

Sadly, I couldn’t find anything like that in the transcript.

Also – Bob has two weeks off. So Kerry gets her Bob-break, too.

The story that jumped out at me most this week was Brooke’s sweet tribute to Don LaFontaine, the movie trailer voice guy. Brooke sounds so completely reverenty and sweet – I wonder if they ever met. It’s entirely possible that he is to her what Wolf Blitzer is to me – the weirdly hot older dude that I totally shouldn’t have a thing for (have you seen the “Situation Room”? Why does everything have to be such a damn production!).

The episode opens with Brooke and Bob all riled up about the Republican National Convention. I have to admit, I was, too. Had I not been, I would have fallen asleep.

Maybe had the media done a bit more reporting on the clashes between protesters and police, it would have been more interesting. Apparently, the police didn’t just arrest protesters – they got some journalists with press passes as well.

I won’t get into my disgust over police arresting peaceful protesters (like it’s not a constitutional right). But arresting journalists, both from the Associated Press and independent media who had credientials is extreme.

It’s been a tough week for journalists, though.

In a moment of complete awesomeness, Bob says this about the convention: “The republican party joined as one to identify, belittle and confront its foe in this fall’s historic election: an opponent who has never been shot down over Vietnam, never had executive experience, and never been a hockey mom. I refer of course to the smooth-talking, flag pin-not-wearing liberal elitist media.”

I wish Brooke and Bob could have come over to our house to watch the convention with us on a laptop while Matthew and I compulsively and quickly tweeted about McCain’s speech. Despite the fact that he’s acknowledged that he doesn’t understand Twitter, I think Bob should set up an account.

Anyway – apparently the media’s coverage of the RNC was “tackier than a costume change at a Madonna concert”, a statement that so aptly describes the GOP that I think it should become their offical complaint against everything.

Bob continues on his awesome rampage, describing Sarah Palin as a superhero from a distant land here to knee Barack Obama in the bits and quoting Spiro Agnew, a man who probably only had sex once and left his black dress socks and sock garters on the whole time.

Though the Republicans seem to think that living next to Russia equals foreign policy experience, Bob isn’t having it, and neither is the mainstream media. I mean, how dare they look into her background and voting record? That’s un-American!

“This is called ‘reporting’ unless you’re on the GOP routing list, in which case, it’s called ‘shameless smears’.” Bob Garfield, I take back every time I’ve talked about your dad jokes or your sweaters or your awful puns. You’re totally angling for the Peabody award in snark, and when you win it, you’d better invite us to the ceremony.

Also this week -  Surveys could be done better, but really, who has the time? No Child Left Behind may or may not be leaving children behind. Maybe there should be some journalism about it, or maybe a survey. Movie teachers never leave children behind. Or, as Brooke points out, have sex lives.

This week’s recap was written by Kerry on Matthew’s computer because hers took a little drink of water last week. Matthew didn’t edit so much as sit on the couch next to Kerry, reading over her shoulder and criticize her every sentence.  Like that one. That I just had to edit. Because he criticized it.

(awesome photo from Xadrian)

I’m working backwards this week – just before the unfortunate revelation that Bob was hosting shirtless, OTM played a short homage to dictatorial fashion in the form of a typical “Project Runway” judging, complete with audio from Tim, Heidi, Nina and Michael. Even the blurb on OTM’s Web site says that the segment “takes this idea one step too far”. Which host do you think proposed the segment? Do you think Bob is into “Project Runway”? Matthew is – he likes the MacGyverishness of it all.

In other news, the conventions are coming up, and 15,000 reporters are headed to the show. That’s great and all, but with everything scripted and pre-determined, there doesn’t seem to be much news value. Guest Jack Shafer argues that the reason for sending all those reporters is that the conventions are a big, boozy journalism fest. With free food. He and Brooke get into it, which makes me glad she’s back and not taking any lip.

Conversely, though NBC has been great about giving us all of the news on Michael Phelps and his freakish amount of wins, but they’re leaving a few things out. They seem to be shying away from news of China’s government and human rights issues. No worries, though – the Olympics are over now, and we can all return to being normal people with lives that consist of more than going to work and coming home to watch people with way more athletic skill.

Also, there’s some conflict between Russia and Georgia. And Bob still doesn’t care what you’re doing (though I wish he would be my twitter follower).

This recap was written by Kerry, who is now wondering when Project Runway 4 is coming out on DVD and when “America’s Next Top Model” starts. Matthew was at work during the writing of the recap, so he had nothing to do with it, though he also wonders when ANTM starts.

The vanquished now lay limp and bleeding on the field while Montagne hoists the lance above her head in victory.

The transcript tells the epic tale. From the bard’s mouth, wherein Montagne is bold, and McCain weak:

So, to move on to domestic questions, Steve Schmidt, who is running your campaign, has said something kind of simple and understandable. He said that a campaign needs one positive message about its candidate and then one good, strong negative message about the opponent. Your camp —

I never heard that statement, and I’d have to know who attributed it to him before I would agree with that. We’re not sending any negative message in our campaign. We’re drawing differences in positions between myself and Sen. Obama, which are significant. He wants to raise taxes; I want to keep them low. He doesn’t want to drill offshore or have nuclear power; I want both. I’ve never heard Steve Schmidt say we need a negative message in the campaign.

I’m quoting The Wall Street Journal here.

I’ve run many, many campaigns, and I have never believed that we need a strong negative message. And I’ve been in –-

However, do you not consider it a negative message, though, when a campaign ad goes on TV that blames your opponent, Barack Obama, for high gas prices or –-

I believe strongly that if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. And he voted for the energy bill that had all kind of tax breaks and giveaways for the oil companies. I believe if you’re not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. And it’s a big problem in America today.

And are you comfortable with ads where your opponent is being compared to Paris Hilton?

I’m very comfortable with my campaign. And I strongly recommend that people who don’t find humor in that relax, turn off the computer and go on it and get some fresh air and try to regain some —

Well, Paris Hilton found some humor in it.

Yeah, sure.

So, to the victor go the spoils, sure, I’m just not sure what those spoils would be.