Bogus news stories from Iraq. Can you imagine?!

Bogus news stories from Iraq. Can you imagine?!

Violence has been dropping in Iraq.

C’mon, guys. You can tell us. The election’s over. You and the Jihadis won! You can even take credit for it now, just as you can for the economy.

Violence has been dropping in Iraq.

C’mon, guys. You can tell us. The election’s over. You and the Jihadis won! You can even take credit for it now, just as you can for the economy.

Violence has been dropping in Iraq.

C’mon, guys. You can tell us. The election’s over. You and the Jihadis won! You can even take credit for it now, just as you can for the economy.

And not enough words. Virginia makes a point that I was vaguely feeling on election day about PJM coverage:

Personally, I hated the PJM election coverage, because I don’t want to have to watch video online. I want to read, and PJM offered way too little written material. But with the right technology, video is much easier to provide–especially if you don’t care about shaky-cam production.

I want to read, too. Given a choice between watching a video (or even listening to audio) of people saying stuff, and reading a transcript, give me the transcript every time, unless there’s some particular reason to want to parse tone/expression, etc.

Save the video for things that need video (rocket launches, explosions, bikini contests, etc.) and give me text for more straightforward information.

I don’t take in and retain information that well through my ears. I always preferred to read the textbook to listening to a professor lecture. The baud rate is just too low. Similarly, whenever (say) Glenn links to something that looks (sounds?) interesting, and it turns out to be a podcast or video, there’s always this resistance to click, or wait for the words to dribble out, whereas if it’s to text, I eagerly read it. I don’t have time to listen to someone tell me something when I can read it much faster.

I hope that as voice recognition gets better, we’ll get more and better instant transcripts of talking-head stuff.

The people quoted in the recent Vanity Fair piece on “neocons” having second thoughts aren’t very impressed with it:

Richard Perle: Vanity Fair has rushed to publish a few sound bites from a lengthy discussion with David Rose. Concerned that anything I might say could be used to influence the public debate on Iraq just prior to Tuesday

I know that this post will bring out the usual anonymous morons with their stupid and discredited “chickenhawk” argument in comments, but Michael Fumento isn’t very impressed with the media performance in Iraq:

Most rear-echelon reporters seem to have studied the same handbook, perhaps The Dummies

Paul Krugman brought some great analysis of economics, the dismal science, to the New York Times Op-Ed page, but has consistently beat the drum in recent years for being dismal about every Bush decision and inaction. I am going to start an anti-Krugman column to take apart each criticism. These antibodies might allow us to have a debate that would allow both less reactive talking points for Democrats and more constructive criticism for the Administration.

The Krugman column is behind the Times Select wall. The cheapest way to pierce this wall is to order home delivery of the Times and go on regular three-month vacations.

Today’s Krugman column has the title “King of Pain”.

Continue reading Anti-Krugman 1 →