How we're wired to be moral, the influence of music in our lives, why so many people aren't interested in voting. gleefully Moorhead, and why the house always wins.
A photo, sent to me by my colleague Jon Gordon, inspires me into deep political thought. It's a clever sign, but do lawn signs make a difference for candidates?
Scroll down, then close your eyes and tell me the name of the candidate.
Sometimes, a lawn sign can lead to more questions than answers. Like this one, sent to Jon by Thomas Freeman.
Why is a guy named Johnsoin using plaid as a background? It's probably an attempt to tap into the Paul Bunyan sensibility in Bemidji.
Two years ago the Walker Art Center allowed people to make their own lawn signs (via Flickr)...
... and proved that people are more creative than politicians.
My guess is lawn signs work better for low-on-the-ticket races. In my district, we have 24 people running for judge. In a completely unscientific survey on News Cut last week, an overwhelming majority of people said they rarely seem to know who they're voting for when it comes to voting for judges. So perhaps the "I've heard of him/her" voter can be influenced by a sign.
The oil company Chevron probably isn't going to win any awards for public relations campaigns. Today it unveiled its "we agree" campaign, to try to convince people that it's not just any oil company...
Here's an example of the confusion being caused today. Is this press release real or fake?
Answer below the fold.
Among those sites getting fooled by the site was Southern California Public Radio, MPR's sister operation in the region.
Some journalists are having an even worse day than Chevron.
At least one journalist in the Twin Cities has been tsk-tsk'ing the mainstream media for not reporting the details of Brett Favre's alleged self portraits.
I've been thinking about this since Nick Coleman posted that tweet last week. He's right, perhaps, that someone in the Twin Cities sports media corps should've at least asked Favre about it. That "honor," however, went to an out-of-town reporter.
On the other hand, it may not be such a bad thing that the rumors stayed rumors until NFL commissioner Roger Goodell's office announced he'd look into them.
But former Twin Cities journalist David Carr wrote in Sunday's New York Times that even that shouldn't have led the mainstream media to adopt the blogger mentality.
That cycle is both oddly familiar and rapidly evolving. Most news organizations stayed off the John Edwards love child story when The National Enquirer broke the news in October 2007, but the dam broke over the course of many months as the drip-drip of evidence and consequences began to accumulate. (At least The Enquirer had to chase John Edwards all over the Beverly Hilton. All Deadspin had to do was pay some loot and open a jpeg.)
There are differences between the two stories. First, the informational value of reporting that a famous married athlete may have been looking to step outside the holy bonds of matrimony does not pass the laugh test. If and when the N.F.L. decides that Favre violated the league's code of personal conduct, it may be news, but not before.
Though they may have been late to the story, the local media is making up for it. In an article in Sunday's Pioneer Press, about the only angle of the story that wasn't covered was this one: the possibility that Favre is being unjustly accused.
You are the editor. What would you have done?(3 Comments)