Hart Williams has a must read on this issue about an event that happened to him. He writes about how when he was a delegate from Oregon to the Democratic National Convention in 2000 in Los Angeles an Australian reporter asked him about Al Gore and how he could support Gore since the Veep was so “boooooring.” Hart gave his stock answer – which was not how it appeared in the paper.

Later, back from the convention, I happened to follow up on the internet, to see what had become of my sound bite. And there, in Australia’s The Age newspaper, it said, ( I don’t have the exact quote in front of me, it’s long since been archived) Hart Williams, an Oregon delegate agrees: “Sure Gore is boring and wooden,” he said, but he’s all they’ve got.

That’s called reporting after you’ve already decided what to write. She needed a quote to go in an article she’d already framed in her reporter’s brain, and therefore, she didn’t see or care to see what was going on. She was just looking for evidence to fill in the chinks in her mental armor, and I was a handy victim.

No, kids: it ain’t “left wing bias.” The media generally screws EVERYBODY in its superficial need to hit deadlines, and it’s best to already know what you’re going to see in advance, so you aren’t confused by all those “facts” when you sit down to write your piece.

He calls his post “Creationism v. Journalism.” Read it in its entirety.

Unless you’ve been in the news biz, it’s hard to explain to today’s political partisans all fired up how the media actually works.

People on the left and right will denounce papers and broadcasters when they disagree with them then quote them and throw out material that supports them later when it suits their side (it’s a credible accurate source when it supports their narrative, biases and battles). MSNBC’s Chris Matthews has been called a tool of the right and the tool of the left. Basically, some people hate any outlet that doesn’t report what it wants to see reported or is not critical of the “other side” and praises or defends its sports political team. Today, many people will not listen to programs, read a paper or visit a website unless they agree with it before they listen, read or visit it (and if they listen, read or visit it and something fits how they see things, it is brilliant and unbiased).

But as a former fulltime journalist who moved into another field after an extensive career here and overseas, I have run into the same situation that Hart notes here.

In local interviews with me, quotes that were printed were often totally created and didn’t match what I told the reporter or how I talk (or write). (When I was a reporter I developed my own form of shorthand and also often used a tape record and had a mania about getting qutoes right and even called back sources to re-check if I had a doubt).

When I first left newspapers into my present fulltime “gig,” a major television network did a news story pegged to what I did and the field reporter asked for the room where did one opening shot to be dimly in a report that began: “I”m dimly lit room in a border town…” It was dim because HE ASKED FOR IT to be dim.

The worst story is when I was a freelance in New Delhi, India from 1973-1975, as the accredited stringer for the Chicago Daily News, but also a contributor to the Christian Science Monitor, Aftenposten, Sydney Morning Herald, Miami Herald Argus South African Newspapers, and other publications.

Through a local contact, a major network asked me if I wanted to be their radio news stringer. This was my big chance to get my foot in the door into broadcasting.

I wrote back I’d love to but I really wanted to caution them about stereotypical stories from India such as about people starving in the streets or cows eating up the food. I got back a letter saying they wanted me to be their stringer and that my letter actually touched a feature they wanted:

My first assignment for their radio broadcast was to get “some sounds of cows mooing,” and to talk to officials about the impact of cows on the food situation in India. The producer told me to get the sound effects and raw interviews, send it to the network’s headquarters and they would do the editing and actual scripting and reporter narration there and I’d get $50 for the short piece.

I never sent it in. Fortunately or unfortunately, I couldn’t operate that way due to my own training and ethics. I could not do a quintessential pre-conceived, pre-written and stereotypical piece of journalism. So I passed on the stringer job and never answered them — but gave the letter to an American political scientist who specialized in India who often complained about journalistic stereotypes and pre-conceived reporting and had told me, “I’ll give you my HOUSE for that letter!!” (I just gave it to him, so he kept his house:)

In these two experiences with broadcast, the approach was to have the person in the field gather raw material, then send it back to the main office where it was written and edited to make a nice piece that a flowed and had a beginning middle and an end. And, in both cases, the emphasis was not on accuracy. In several experiences with print media, I was shocked as a former reporter to see how words were put in my mouth or news stories about me riddled with mistakes (even my name).

Meanwhile, there are times when you can TELL a news outlet just by listening to it.

To wit:

Yesterday I was in a rush and headed out the door and quickly turned on the TV and put it onto what I thought was CNN. I was in another part of the room when the anchor interviewed a talking head on the upcoming NY terrorist trials. I only heard the show. The reporter asked questions that sometimes sounded like they were coming from a political viewpoint. The interviewer gave extensive replies highly critical of the administration but there was no follow up by the reporter. It seemed an interview with a political message, one where the content was pre-ordained. I said out loud: “This MUST be Fox.” I went and checked. Yep.

In my car, I was in a rush again and I quickly turned on satellite radio to one of the talk stations without looking. It was live extensive coverage of the Senate debate on health care reform. “It MUST be CSPAN..” Yep.

Similarly, you can tell it’s MSNBC if you get Keith or Rachael.

But Sean, Rush, Keith, Rachel — we know they have specific political axes to grind. Most people can deal with that.

It’s the invention of quotes, gross inaccuracies and stereotypical reporting which that people sometimes have problems dealing with — and in mega polarized 21st century America, what better way to try and explain it then claim it was part of a liberal or conservative plot or bias?

Sometimes it’s just a case of a print or broadcast reporter submitting a pre-conceived report that contains material he or she could not get with their reporting.

So they defraud their editors and their readers.

And their craft.

Stewart, host of Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show,” joked that he was “really annoyed” to discover Williams’ quick wit when he first invited him on in 2003.

“Nobody likes a guy who can do a real job and your job,” said Stewart, calling the notion that news anchors shouldn’t show a sense of humor “a false ideal.”

“It’s a silly thing to keep bottled up,” he said. “It won’t necessarily perjure your other work.”

Williams’ levity may surprise viewers who see him as the consummate newsman. He’s made six trips to the war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq and received numerous awards for his on-the-ground coverage of Hurricane Katrina in 2005. (This week, he received the Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Journalism from Arizona State University.)

It’s working for him. After two straight seasons of ratings gains, his newscast is up again this season. And he’s clear about limits. He canned a satellite appearance from Afghanistan on Leno after 14 Americans died in helicopter crashes that day.

Now that we’ve gotten some of the Chinese reaction to president Obama’s trip, it’s time to start sampling the reaction of the rest of the world.

This article by the great Thomas Klau of Germany’s Financial Times Deutschland is not encouraging – and points out that without the U.S. able to exercise effective leadership, it’s time to grapple seriously with stronger global institutions.

According to Klau, President Obama’s China visit signals that a moment the Europeans have dreaded for hundreds of years has come when he writes:

“At least since the time of Napoleon, we Europeans have lived with a somewhat fearful suspicion that China will likely wake up one day as a giant of global politics. Now that time has come.”

As far as what the trip shows about the United States, Klau is even less sanguine, and more than a little “peeved” that Obama is treating Beijing better than he does the European Union:

“Obama’s China visit was more than a passing episode. It most likely documents the definitive end of a historic epoch, in which the foremost Western power was able to present itself internationally as the ultimate authority on good government and good business, without incurring more than the weak protestations of those who were comparatively unsuccessful. … the turnaround year of 1989 [year the Berlin Wall fell] marked the beginning of the end of a historic era – an era in which Western concepts of good governance and good business almost entirely dominated the global discourse. If things stay this way because China continues to do splits between free and un-free politics, the Tiananmen Square massacre will be, unfortunately, the 1989 event with the strongest influence on the future.”

“We are slowly beginning to get used to this new, post-American world. Peeved, we see that the globally more modest United States treats its coolly-controlling lender China with greater care than it does the European Union.”

By Thomas Klau*

Translated By Stephanie Martin

November 19, 2009

Germany – Financial Times Deutschland – Original Article (German)

After the cool treatment of Europeans, now comes a soft stance toward China. During his first visit to Asia, U.S. President Barack Obama, sober as always in his approach to foreign policy, has drawn his conclusions about the reorganization of the global power arena. In accordance with the wishes of the Chinese leadership, human rights rhetoric was almost entirely missing from Obama’s public statements. Behind closed doors he may have made demands on some key issues like Iran; in public, however, anything that may have suggested America as school master and China as the one receiving instruction was avoided.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

What is the significance of President Obama’s habit of bowing to foreign royalty? Continuing with our coverage of China’s reaction to president Obama’s Asia tour, Diguo Zhunjiang for China’s state-controlled Global Geographic Times asserts that while this results in a great loss of face for the United States, he warns his readers not to be lulled into a sense of complacency by Obama’s apparent shows of respect.

For China’s Global Geographic Times, Diguo Zhunjiang writes in part:

“I regard this as a performance. If we say that his bow upon meeting the Saudi king was a genuine expression of traditional royal awe by the newly-elected Obama, then we can also say that this time, his bow was a way of getting back at domestic critics. His intentions are quite obvious: he wants a change from the cowboy-style arrogance of his predecessor Bush in order to re-establish the United States as a model of civility, but on a deeper level, repair the damage that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have done to America’s image.

“Regardless of how humble it is in appearance, arrogant strategic thinking is in America’s bones and will continue to be so. So we shouldn’t place any hope in this false smile that has been grafted onto the United States. Rather, we should be more vigilant.”

By Diguo Zhunjiang

Translated By Mark Klingman

November 15, 2009

People’s Republic of China – Global Geographic Times – Original Article (China)

While in Tokyo, at noon on November 14, U.S. President Barack Obama met the Japanese emperor and empress at the Imperial Palace in Tokyo. Upon meeting him at the door of the royal residence, the tall Mr. Obama made an almost 90-degree bow and shook the Emperor’s hand. Obama stopped just shy of a deep bow, and shook hands warmly with the emperor and empress, saying, “it’s really an honor to meet you, your majesty.”

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

THIS is why Chris Matthews drives me crazy. (I wanted to embed the video, but I couldn’t.)

I mean, what is the name of that film technique where they “twin” a person? You know, like in The Patty Duke Show, or The Parent Trap? Why doesn’t Matthews do that and just interview himself about this new book? Why waste the actual author’s time?

Of course she is. She’s been governor of a large state. She’s run for vice-president. Of  course Sarah Palin is qualified to be president.

Like the would-be VP but for much longer and in a far different way, Oprah has been a phenomenon, rising from the depths of poverty to become an American icon with empathy, intelligence and enthusiasm, an Everywoman in constant battles to control her emotional life as well as her weight, educate herself and her audiences with a book club, overcome all obstacles in a world still dominated by men.

Her embrace of Barack Obama last year was the climax of a career that went well beyond race, giving a rhetorically gifted but emotionally standoffish candidate just the touch of humanity needed to connect with her constituency, to say nothing of the $3 million and more she raised for him.

Trading her celebrity at 55 to become a mostly behind-the-scenes Rupert Murdoch, Oprah leaves more than two decades of what has been called “a talk show as group therapy session” for millions

MORE.

Mike Oreskes, a senior managing editor, offers staffers a description of the AP’s own work tracking down and fact checking the book and it reads like a spy thriller:

“The AP was determined to get the first copy,” Oreskes wrote, detailing how the writers learned a store had “inadvertently placed the book on sale five days before its official Nov. 17 release date.”

“They bought a copy, ripped it from its spine and scanned it into the system so it could be read and electronically searched,” he wrote. “A NewsNow moved within 40 minutes, followed quickly by multiple leads as details were gleaned from the 413-page manuscript.”

From the newsletter:

The publisher, HarperCollins, had it locked down. There were no galleys for reviewers or agents. Warehouses were closely guarded. Stores were threatened with large fines. People close to Palin – those given early copies – were strongly advised not to show them to reporters.

The AP had owned the story from the start, with a series of exclusives from Italie beginning with Palin’s contract with HarperCollins, and the AP was determined to get the first copy. [...]

The story commanded massive play, including The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal.com and USA Today, the three major television networks, and major Web sites and portals Yahoo, Google, Huffington Post and Politico. The Washington Post did a separate story about how the publisher’s carefully orchestrated rollout was foiled, and Palin herself, not happily, noted the scoop on Facebook.

Impressive. And nice to know that AP rewards good work. The two journos who found the book share a $500 cash prize that AP gives each week for best gets.

Can President Obama persuade China not to be so dependent on growth, particularly trade-dependent growth? Likening Beijing’s obsession with growth to a Chinese version of the ‘Berlin Wall,’ Feng Mengyun of China’s state-run Global Geographic Times expresses his hope that President Obama can do something to talk the Beijing leadership into turning over a new leaf.

With some surprising criticism of the regime, Feng Mengyun writes for the Global Geographic Times in part:

“Prior to thirty years ago, the old Chinese model caused tremendous suffering. But an even graver sin would have been to stick with the system that caused such suffering.

“While [Chinese] exports stand at $1.7 trillion, domestic sales are only $860 billion. China’s trade deficit with the U.S. is $300 billion. This seems like a huge trade surplus, not to mention a contradiction. More difficult to fathom is how much foreign exports are responsible for China’s rise. Today, even with 20 percent of the world’s doors closed to trade, China unceasingly opposes trade protection and domestic unemployment is rising by the million. Is China capable of dealing with this?

“The unpredictable issue is China itself. Because rising growth has become China’s ‘Berlin Wall.’

“Obama’s ‘mutually beneficial’ thinking has already received widespread support in liberal countries, which is why the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize went to the first Black U.S. president. Since he arranged to visit China before going to Norway to collect his Prize, I hope while visiting China, Obama declares: ‘Mr. Hu Jintao, tear down this wall!’

By Feng Mengyun [???]

Translated by Jimmy Chow

November 16, 2009

People’s Republic of China – Global Geographic Times – Original Article (China)

U.S. President Barack Obama, “Ambassador of Peace,” has finally set foot in Beijing. Ahead of his visit, North Korea fired missiles, there was a sea battle between North and South Korea, and Somali pirates took 28 Chinese sailors hostage. What do these events tell Chinese who their enemies and friends are!

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

A spokeswoman for Ms. Winfrey’s production company, Harpo, confirmed Thursday evening that Ms. Winfrey would make an announcement on her show on Friday. The plans were first reported by WABC, the ABC station in New York City.

“The sun will set on the Oprah show as its 25th season draws to a close on Sept. 9, 2011,” Tim Bennett, the president of Harpo, said in a message to affiliates.

WSJ:

The move is a big blow to the syndicated television market, in which Ms. Winfrey has grown to become a juggernaut. “The Oprah Winfrey Show,” which launched in syndication in 1986, attracted 6.6. million viewers for the week ended November 8, according to Nielsen Co.

Local television stations, which use Ms. Winfrey to anchor their daytime hours, could also smart from Ms. Winfrey’s decision. Her show has been one of the few whose ad rates have held steady in the recession, according to one ad buyer.

Chicago Tribune:

Speculation has been rampant [link] that she might choose to leave daytime TV ever since it was announced in January 2008 that she and Discovery Networks planned to partner on a cable network: OWN: The Oprah Winfrey Network.

The cable network’s debut, originally set for this year, has been delayed more than once and a launch date is expected to be firmed up by the end of this year for sometime in 2010. The new channel will take the place of what is now Discovery Health, available in 70 million homes from the start.

Reuters:

Winfrey, 55, is considered a major opinion-maker in the United States and this year was No. 45 on Forbes magazine’s list of the world’s most powerful people.

She publicly promoted Barack Obama during his 2008 presidential campaign and her program became a platform this week for Republican 2008 vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin to launch her book, “Going Rogue.”

Tweet tweet:

Not only does Oprah now dominate Twitter’s trending topics across multiple terms, which is quite remarkable given the volume of New Moon noise, but Trendrr has alerted us to the fact that Oprah mentions, in just the first hour alone after the news broke, skyrocketed to more than 8,000 tweets.

Tweets per hour Trendrr graph via Mashable, “we expect this to be an ongoing trend through tomorrow’s official announcement.”

According to this blog entry from the Web site of China’s Global Geographic Times, a U.S. Embassy request that China use a new spelling of Obama’s Chinese name has been met with suspicion among that nation’s ‘Netizens.’

So what’s in a name, one might ask?

For the Global Geographic Times, Scholar Jiang Huai writes in part:

“On November 12, officials at the U.S. Embassy in China told reporters that the U.S. president’s name had been changed. (The president’s name is written with three Chinese characters, and they wanted to change the first so that, when read out loud, it sounds more like ‘Oubama’ (???) rather than ‘Aobama’ (???)).”

Puzzling over the explanation for this, Jiang Huai writes:

“When people translate Chinese, they often fail to pay close attention to the sound of Chinese characters. The U.S. suspects that the original name ‘Aobama’ contains the Chinese characters for ‘Australia’ and ‘fawn over.’ Now that China and Australia are increasingly close, the U.S. will of course be concerned about this. ‘Oubama,’ on the other hand, includes the Chinese characters for ‘Europe’ and ‘fawn over,’ within which may be hidden America’s great ambition to have Europeans once again pledge their allegiance to it.”

By Scholar Jiang Huai (????)

Translated by Jimmy Chow

November 13, 2009

People’s Republic of China – Global Geographic Times – Original Article (Chinese)

What’s the best name???

On November 12, officials at the U.S. Embassy in China told reporters that the U.S. president’s name had been changed. (The president’s name is written with three Chinese characters, and they wanted to change the first so that, when read out loud, it sounds more like “Oubama” (???) instead of “Aobama” (???)). Embassy officials explained that this transliteration was closer to the English. Is this just about an American word, or is there something else going on here?

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

“I feel like there are lot of critics of the government but there are very few critics of the media who have an audience and are credible and keep a watch on things,” said “Daily Show” writer Elliott Kalan. “That’s a role that we provide that we take very seriously.”

Kalan said the biggest mistakes he sees the mainstream media make involve overreaction and early reaction to the news. On television especially, he said, everything is “a scoop” or “breaking news” even when it’s not. He noted that presenting the coverage in such a way leads networks to give news a level of speed and intensity that can sometimes get in the way of facts. [...]

One of the show’s rules is to not trust any source too much until it’s been confirmed by another source. The show’s 11 writers and eight producers — who range in age from their early 20s to mid 40s and four of whom are women — say they often check The New York Times and other newspapers to verify the facts and figures they hear on TV or read about on blogs. They also have a researcher and fact-checker, Adam Chodikoff, who makes sure any information that’s used has been verified by multiple sources.

“We work very hard to make sure that we don’t take anything out of context,” King explained, “just because we like to think at the end of the day that what we’re doing is right and correct, but also because while the networks don’t respond to us all that much, people attack us and criticize us and we don’t want to give them ammunition than they need.”

Read on. Good stuff. A sample of some Stewart fun…

Since the Dish has tried to be rigorous and careful in analyzing Palin’s unhinged grip on reality from the very beginning – specifically her fantastic story of her fifth pregnancy – we feel it’s vital that we grapple with this new data as fairly and as rigorously as possible. That takes time to get right. And it is so complicated we simply cannot focus on anything else…

There is a possibility here of such a huge scandal that we would be crazy not to take our time either to debunk it or move it forward for further examination.

We have only one commitment: to get this right. Please bear with us as we do the best we can.

Perhaps Sullivan & Co. will finally solve the mystery of who Trig’s parents really are. My hunch: Ann Coulter and a polar bear.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly

On Monday, Think Progress trashed liberal pundit Mark Shields for allegedly saying, with regard to Obama’s patience on Afghanistan,

[It] makes me nostalgic for those days when we had a manly man in the White House who could say, “Let’s kick some tail and ask questions afterwards” you know? That’s what we really need instead of any reflection.

Kevin Drum read TP’s post and seconded the motion, albeit with more circumspection and less vitriol. But to his credit, Kevin read the comments on his post and apologized.

Why? The quote was accurate. But if you watch the one-minute clip embedded in TP’s post, it is more than obvious that Shields is being sarcastic and mocking conservatives who criticize Obama. Extra credit to Kevin for admitting that he put up his post without even watching the clip.

Now, if you really want to see the netroots at their worst, read the comment thread at the end of the original post on TP. Both the ignorance and the viciousness are disturbing. According to Comment #14:

What we really need is gutless fat *ssed scum like [Shields] getting the beatdown of your life from the families of those who have paid the ultimate price in wars cheered on by your spineless, unaccountable pontificating.

Shields is nothing but another worthless piece of sh*t in a long line of tough guy chickenhawks.

Incidentally, Shields is a Marine Corps veteran. And that comment is just par for the course, not just one ugly comment I picked out to pass judgment on the netroots. To their credit, a handful of commenters insist that Shields was being sarcastic. Others know so little about Shields they call him conservative.

Full disclosure: There’s plenty of insanity in the far-right blogosphere as well. But the attack on Shields is so bizarre I thought it deserved a post.

Cross-posted at Conventional Folly

Yet with the media hype everyone panics, rushes to the doctor or the hospital, insists on antibiotic treaments than may do more harm than good. The daily reports on CNN/MSNBC/Fox/et al is certainly not helping the situation.

I myself may be dealing with a mild case right now. I’ve got some of the symptoms (tiredness, headache, cough, scratchy throat and mild fever). Yet none of the symptoms are anywhere close to major, and they are all very intermittent. So I’ve taken it easy the last few days, only going to those client meetings I could not avoid (and in conducting those avoided handshakes/etc). I’ve drunk orange and grape juice by the gallon and I’ve slept as much as I wanted.

In short I’ve done what any Mom would have told be to do and all signs are (sorry for those who might be disappointed) that I’ll be fine. Indeed I am still not sure I actually had the flu or if it was just an allergy attack.

Now obviously if I had more serious symptons, high fever or serious cough or anything that really problematic I would have called the doctor. But in my case there was no real need to do that. But I am sure there are thousands of people out there who would have panicked and rushed to the doctor, all to no avail.

So while I’m certainly not downplaying the illness I do think a dose of common sense is just as important as the asprin.

Now, that would REALLY expand the GOP’s existing base, and attract moderate Democrats, independent voters, moderate Republicans and Latino voters. If he’s not available, why use the same approach to expand the GOP’s base by inviting Rush Limbaugh? Actually a ticket like this would make sense: Palin is the quintessential politician who reflects the current talk radio political culture in addressing issues and characterizing those who may disagree.

FOOTNOTE: The Palin story seems to be dominating the news cycle on weblogs and in political columns. Go HERE. Andrew Sullivan has even had his site “go dark” for only the second time in 10 years as he and his other two bloggers concentrate on the Palin book and story.

In the years that we have pursued this project, today’s posting is one of the strangest international press articles I can recall. And while it indicates that Hamas may be allowing more press freedom than we thought – the conclusions of the author are anything but comforting.

Keeping in mind that the accused killer is of Palestinian origin, the author of this article from the Al Watan Voice, a newspaper published in Hamas-controlled Palestinian territory, while blaming the Fort Hood shootings on a conspiracy of either Zionism or Freemasonry [not unusual for the Arab press], agrees with the reasoning of the conspirators he seeks to expose.

And what is this reasoning? That President Obama, in showing humility and forgiveness toward Arab and Muslim states, is regarded by them as weak, and that the only way to deal with such states is the way George W. Bush did.

For the Al Watan Voice, columnist Hameed Al Wasity writes in part:

“Barack Obama has shown and continues to show inappropriate weakness and unjustified humility. This has been taken advantage of by Arab and Muslim governments.

“The Fort Hood shooting was organized by the hidden world government, international Zionism or Freemasonry (who nominated Obama for a presidential run), and was designed to push an Arab-Muslim officer – and a doctor with the rank of Major – to teach Obama and others a primary lesson: when an American doctor and officer would betray and kill in an instant, one cannot so easily trust Arabs and Muslims – and he [Hasan] was an Arab and a Muslim!!

“Unless Obama changes his policies and begins following in the footsteps of those who preceded him by bringing back American prestige, then there’ll be yet another lesson and another opportunity!! …”

By Hameed Al Wasity

Translated By Nicolas Dagher

November 12, 2009

Palestinian Territories [Gaza] – Al Watan Voice – Original Article (Arabic)

CNN has carried a report of an Arab officer who killed 13 American soldiers and wounded dozens at the Fort Hood military base in Texas.

And the officer, Major Nidal Hasan, is a psychiatrist responsible for treating American soldiers. There are so many colorful stories about his nationality. Some of his colleagues say he’s Jordanian, while certain news outlets report he’s of Palestinian origin.

READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, your most trusted translator and aggregator of foreign news and views about our nation.

With the powers invested in me by executive order, the first and only decision I will make is abolish the Bowl Championship Series aka BCS.

College football is the only major sport in America not decided on the field but by sportswriters, broadcasters, coaches and computers. It is not an objective way to determine a national champion. The reason it is this way is money, greed by college presidents and ESPN.

My plan is to install a 16-team playoff format. It would consist of conference champions, independents-at-large (i.e. Notre Dame) and, if necessary, conference runners-up if their records warrant an invitation to the Sweet 16. That way, the school ranked 17th, has no one to blame but itself. More on those guys later.

I would reduce the season to 11 games that would conclude on the Thanksgiving weekend with conference championship games played. The three Saturdays in December would hold the first three rounds of the playoffs. The national championship game would be played the first week in January. Proceeds from the games would be distributed proportionally to all the conferences participating based on how far they progressed.

That would mean the most any two teams would play is 15 games in a season which is two more than the way it is now under the BCS. Four teams would play 14 and, of course, 16 play 13. I believe that deflates the argument the college football season is too long since more than 100 other NCAA Division One teams would play 11 or 12 at the most.

Most of the nation is glued to their television sets during March Madness when college basketball holds its 64-team tournaments. Who’s to say college football couldn’t draw equal frenzy?

Under the playoff system, no longer would we hear sour grapes from Boise State or TCU because they played a weaker conference schedule than the SEC, Big 8, Big 10 or Pac 10.

It also would determine if the Southeast Conference is really the best football conference in America. They say they are but that’s not enough. Prove it on the gridiron, not the press box.

I’m a native Southern Californian and for years believe the East Coast bias short-changed the really good teams playing in that media’s wrong time zone. USC under coach Pete Carroll has received its national acclaim rightfully. But, why are they in the top 20 at the moment when they have been killed by Oregon and Stanford as well as losing to Washington?

Stanford is getting no love outside of the West Coast because they have the reputation of bad teams in the past. The last two weekends they could have beaten Florida, Alabama or Texas. The Pac 10 does not have a championship game so their chances for the national title are nil in the BCS format but a darling of destiny in a playoff system.

Under the playoff system, teams not qualifying could still play in bowl games and the bragging rights for the winners just the same as under the BCS. Last year, the Pac 10 was 5-0 in bowl games which raised no eyebrows from those elitist experts on the East Coast.

Unless they lose their next games, the BCS most likely will select either an undefeated Boise State or TCU play the loser of the SEC championship game. That’s a half loaf compared to what really would be meaningful under a playoff format.

You see, Glenn Beck, being a czar is not a bad gig. Besides, I have the president covering my backside. He, too, wants a playoff system in college football.

Yours truly, a West Coast biased football fan. Go (Oregon) Ducks. Go (Stanford) Cardinal.

Elevating political discourse. Drawing a line in the sand. Polite company. A middle ground. Get it? If you’re Media Matters, CNN or The New York Times, you are in the happy position of proposing that what you espouse is elevating, middle-of-the-road, non-fractious opinion that is acceptable to “polite company,” i.e., you and your friends.

I guess I’ll have to take up the CNN gauntlet here. I’ve found CNN to be much less partisan, generally, than nearly any other “MSM” source.

It is, however, an interesting jump-off point for discussion. After all, one’s location along the political spectrum is bound to look pretty… well… reasonable to oneself — and all the more so if you’re living in the online echo-chamber.

Here’s what’s really at stake in the controversy of Dobbs and CNN. It’s not only Dobbs who’s been rusticated: It’s also the robust liberalism that thrived on disagreement, argument and polemic.

If he’s looking for Classical Liberalism, I’m afraid he needs to be in the historical section of his local library.

But where is the rational, reasonable “middle ground” these days? And where do you go to find it, anyway, in this hyper-partisan new-media world? Because I’ll agree with Mr. Kimball up to a point: you’re unlikely to find it at Media Matters, or in Paul Krugman’s opinion pieces.