Can't you see the sexism, you disgusting pigs? CAN'T YOU?!!

I don’t spend a tremendous amount of time perusing MSM-promoted or hosted opinion columns, primarily because they seldom have much to offer. However, on occasion they are rich sources of entertainment, albeit unintentionally.

A prime example of this is the latest post by one Margot Magowan, authoress of the ReelGirl blog (you all have it bookmarked, right?) whose writings are also promoted as part of City Brights, an area on the San Francisco Chronicle’s website featuring “prominent local citizens and experts with a unique Bay Area perspective that is often enlightening, sometimes infuriating and always thought-provoking.” City Brights boasts a lengthy list of contributors, household names one and all. At least in their own household. In fairness’ interest it also promotes numerous conservative authors, provided zero equals numerous.

Back to Ms. Magowan, whose latest exercise in deathless prose explains why her daddy Peter sold the San Francisco Giants rather than pass it along to the next generation. Ms. Magowan, feminist hackles raised to DEFCON 1, fumes and fusses about the latest blast against sisterhood and all things equal by that most dastardly of oppressors…

… M&M’s.

You just thought they were innocuous chocolate candies in a candy shell that melt in your mouth, not in your hand, didn’t you? HA! Shows how brainwashed you are. Thankfully, Ms. Magowan is here, leading us to the light:

It’s been a while since I blogged about the intensely sexist marketing of M & Ms candy.

So sorry we’ve missed that.

But then, someone posted about the new Coconut M & Ms on my Facebook page, and I was so disgusted by what I saw.

Um… a bag of candy? Lighten up on the puritanical diet, dearie.

By now, we’re all familiar with Ms. Green, her high heeled white go-go boots and spidery eyelashes.

And how she’s always depicted as too cool for school and smarter than all the boy M&M’s put together. Well, we’re familiar with that. Ms. Magowan, alas, not so much.

Now she’s got a pink flower pasted on her head.

Good thing for Ms. Magowan it’s not a pink triangle, or her head might explode.

And there is Yellow (Mr. Yellow?) above her, falling out of a tree while trying to catch his binoculars.

Yes, Yellow is a boy. And, as repeatedly depicted in M&M’s ads, a loveable albeit clumsy and none too bright doofus.

In this picture-narrative we also see John’s Berger’s classic analysis of historical sexism in art-life: Men watch; women watch themselves being watched.

Oh, really? That’s what we see? Silly me. I thought it was Green and Yellow being… well, Green and Yellow.

But these are M & Ms, you say. Why care about this picture?

Tell us, sister! TELL US!!!

First of all, these cartoon images appeal to kids.

What’s that then? Cartoon characters appeal to kids? The devil you say! And, by the way, most all of the M&M’s ads are aimed at adults.

Why sexualize them?

To make silly liberal heads explode.

Why sexualize candy?

Because sex sells. And M&M’s routinely lampoons the whole sexy aspect. Think about this: M&M’s? Sexy? Don’t be silly. Oh, wait, you’re already being silly. Please, carry on.

Secondly, the images promote gender stereotypes that are insidious, ubiquitous, and in this particular scene, actually dangerous.

Yes, it is dangerous for dumb clumsy guys to facilitate sightseeing by climbing palm trees.

The first anti-stalking law wasn’t passed until 1990 and the crime is still only slowly gaining recognition and credibility as a serious infraction. Obviously, M & Ms thinks it’s a joke.

Or, M&M’s is foolish enough to think there is sufficient intelligence among the Ms. Magowans of this world to figure out that Yellow is there not to stalk Green, but rather like her is on vacation, climbed the tree to go sightseeing and has managed to be his usual self by falling out of the tree. Big mistake in the M&M’s/Mars marketing department, believing people have a clue beyond the sphere of their outrage at anything and everything they’re too damn stupid to understand.

Do you think there could be a correlation between people not taking the crime seriously and that it’s women who are the victims in disproportionate numbers? (Source: National Center For Victims of Crime)

No, but you do. Bet you believe there’s a Republican war on women too.

Parents, do you really want your daughters and sons to see a “sexy” female getting stalked on an M & Ms package as if it’s funny? As if it’s normal?

As if the kids don’t get what’s going on, thus placing them far ahead of Ms. Magowan on the intelligence scale?

And why does M & Ms persist in a sexist marketing strategy that continually degrades, humiliates, or stereotypes its female characters? If M & Ms promoted racial stereotypes, would that be okay?

Oh… you mean like this?

Luckily, Coconut M & Ms is a limited edition. I wonder what they’ll come up with next. Any guesses?

I’m thinking something cute and amusing. To everyone besides Ms. Magowan, that is.

Ah, the joys of San Francisco Bay Area living.

ADDENDUM: Thanks to Stacy McCain, Roxeanne de Lucia, Dan Collins, John Hawkins, Pirate’s Cove, The TrogloPundit and The Daley Gator for the links.

We started corresponding fairly regularly. Ellen was a member of the MSM herself, writing about NASCAR for ESPN and her hometown newspaper. Bit by bit we told each other fragments of our life story, hers being of such interest I asked her for permission to talk about it in my blog. It took a few months to arrange, but finally we spent some time on the phone, from which I wrote my post. Please go read it. Hers was an amazing story of perseverance and faith in the face of many trials.

Now, back then bloggers and reporters were supposed to get along about as well as cats and dogs. Not a whole lot has changed in that regard that I know of. But Ellen and I… well, despite the miles between us and our different experiences, and despite how ofttimes months would transpire in-between us dropping each other a line, we got along famously. She was smart, spunky and sassy; a genuine delight to know.

She wrote me in February of 2011 with some bad news. Leukemia. I wrote about it, ironically for my own mainstream media gig. We started keeping in touch as often as she could while she battled against what was trying to steal her from this planet.

In February of this year I heard from her again, asking if I knew anyone going to the Daytona 500 with whom she might be able to share a room (unfortunately I didn’t). She said she was doing well, feeling good and for the first time in her life gaining weight when it was a good thing to be doing. I was happy. It sounded like the Ellen I knew, and it sounded like she had beaten the leukemia.

She hadn’t.

Ellen passed away earlier this month.

Something she wrote bears repeating:

My goals have changed since my diagnosis of acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) in July 2010. While I’d still like to write a book, it will certainly include things I had no knowledge of when I initially wrote up my profile — “to write a book on my experiences with my son’s death due to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome; my daughter’s bout with bacterial meningitis at the age of 13 months and subsequent deafness; the cochlear implant she had surgically inserted in Charlotte, N.C., at the age of 5; my oldest son’s Asperger Syndrome; my dad’s Alzheimer’s; and some other very interesting turns of life I’ve come through, including the excitement of covering NASCAR for the York Dispatch..”

I ‘m still trying to approach it all with an attitude of gratitude

She did.

In conclusion, a word for my fellow conservatives. Just as not everyone who collects unemployment is a shiftless slacker sponging off the public dole, and not every government employee is a lazy clockwatcher counting down the days until they can draw a fatcat pension, not every traditional media reporter is a talentless, clueless leftist tool. At least some of them are very good at their job, taking it seriously and doing their best every time to be accurate and fair. And at least some of them are good people.

Very, very good people.

God speed, Ellen. By His grace we will meet again.

While it is true we of the Palin posse are prone to defend her, the notion that such stems more from reflex than reflection upon points of consideration is inaccurate. No doubt great surprise will be found by the aforementioned nattering nabobs of Nerdprom in that most of us have actually taken the time to study Palin’s record and policies in something more than a drive-by fashion.

Which decidedly puts us one up on them.

A recent example of same comes from Jennifer Rubin, as we are oft told conservative blogger for the Washington Post. In a post earlier today generating such frenetic worldwide interest it presently has zero comments, although this is no doubt assigned by Washingtonius insiderus to the belief that Palin supporters can’t read, Rubin assails Palin for adopting an isolationist world view akin to that held by Ron ‘the Rampage’ Paul.

Uh-huh.

Let’s break this down based on what Palin said last night in a speech. In comparison to Ms. Rubin’s take on it drawn from an article by that legendary purveyor of journalistic integrity and fair play Politico, what she actually said, word for word:

I believe our criteria before we send our young men and women—America’s finest—into harm’s way should be spelled out clearly when it comes to the use of our military force. I can tell you what I believe that criteria should be in five points.

First, we should only commit our forces when clear and vital American interests are at stake. Period.

Second, if we have to fight, we fight to win. To do that, we use overwhelming force. We only send our troops into war with the objective to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible. We do not stretch out our military with open-ended and ill-defined missions. Nation building is a nice idea in theory, but it is not the main purpose of our armed forces. We use our military to win wars.

And third, we must have clearly defined goals and objectives before sending troops into harm’s way. If you can’t explain the mission to the American people clearly and concisely, then our sons and daughters should not be sent into battle. Period.

Fourth, American soldiers must never be put under foreign command. We will fight side by side with our allies, but American soldiers must remain under the care and the command of American officers.

Fifth, sending in our armed forces should be the last resort. We don’t go looking for dragons to slay. However, we will encourage the forces of freedom around the world who are sincerely fighting for the empowerment of the individual. When it makes sense, when it’s appropriate, we will provide them with material support to help them win their own freedom.

We are not indifferent to the cause of human rights or the desire for freedom. We are always on the side of both. But we can’t fight every war. We can’t undo every injustice around the world. But with strength and clarity in those five points, we’ll make for a safer, more prosperous, more peaceful world because as the U.S. leads by example, as we support freedom across the globe, we’re going to prove that free and healthy countries don’t wage war on other free and healthy countries. The stronger we are, the stronger and more peaceful the world will be under our example.

Wow, what an isolationist Sarah Palin has become! I mean, really! Have an objective? Have a plan? Use our armed forces for our interests? Crazy talk if ever there was such. Just because this has been the foundation of every successful military philosophy in history… come on. Next I suppose Palin will throw some hair-brained goof out there like, oh, not overextending yourself militarily. Some people, I tell you.

And we, the Palin supporters, are supposed to be the naive ones.

None of this should come as the slightest surprise. We can, and do, read for ourselves that Rubin makes no bones about her negative view of Palin. Nevertheless, we are a generous people, unwilling to engage in the circular firing squad suicide or automatically throw people under the bus but rather extending a hand to join us. There is always room for healthy debate; such is welcomed. As soon as someone engages in such we’ll be there. Junk like what Rubin wrote, not so much.

We do not all march in lockstep with Sarah Palin on every issue (endorsing Rand Paul? Really?) . We are neither drones nor zombies. Which, considering the omnipresent drumbeat of Palin as dum-dum emanating from the Jennifer Rubins of this world — rather, their world — when in fact she is anything but, is a status happily left to her critics.

ADDENDUM: Thanks to Whitney Pitcher at Conservatives4Palin for the link.

(Cross-posted at POWIP)

(This is cross-posted from my NASCAR blog.)

Part of my main goal for 2011, a/k/a Operation Getting My Life Back, is to some degree getting back into the Diecast Dude state of mind. While I haven’t the taste for resurrecting the pitched battles with others that marked my halcyon days, I also have no desire to turn this space into Mr. Rogers Goes To NASCAR Land. Or teenage wasteland (cue the Who). Thus, I am working toward finding the balance between pastoral and pugnacious. Along with time to write and such. Getting well would be nice, too.

Anyway, I’ve been observing from afar the brouhaha over what took place in Daytona. Not on the track, mind you. In the media center, where at the race’s conclusion the sacred seal of silence was broken by the apocalyptic acidity of applause. By some, anyway.

Ever since the sordid, or so it is said by several, incident more gallons of electronic ink have been spilled on the matter than on Trevor Bayne. Speaking of the Knoxville lad, if the hype is beginning to turn you off, don’t let it. The kid is genuinely nice, sincere, and a talented young driver with a tremendous upside. But enough racing talk; back to what really matters — pontificating pundits. (Yes, I am being sarcastic.)

There are two schools of thought as to what happened, reminding one of the old joke about there being two theories on how to argue with women, neither of which work. One side says it was a one-time, spontaneous response to a magic sports moment and therefore no big deal. The other side says, and says and says and says, that it violated the holy oath of impartiality, unacceptably debased the sports journalism brand and highlighted the scurrilous nature of those irresponsible, unprofessional, unethical, uneducated and most likely unwashed cretins from the crass lagoon that is the (ugh!) blogosphere. Oh, and get off my lawn, you meddlesome kids.

Were this a simple case of differing opinions, all would be fine, well and good. Both sides’ argument have merit. Personal example, if I may: last year at Auto Club, during the October Nationwide race I said more than a few words out loud that would have made Richard Pryor blush when James Bueschler took out Danica Patrick. Was I rooting for her? Certainly and unashamedly. Then again, I was also the only reporter in the skybox press center at the time, yet even with that I kept all other comments strictly on the audible only to self volume level. Had I had company, as was the case during the Sprint Cup race the following day, I wouldn’t have said anything. Out loud, anyway. I’m not going to stop being a fan, but subjecting journalists to distractions such as cheering and the like is unprofessional. Besides, I was there to report, not root. Not that it stopped me from rooting; rather, I rooted just as hard as ever on that weekend. Just silently.

Indulge me expanding on this.

To this not-so humble scribe, on those unfortunately rare occasions when I’ve entered the press box and/or media center I have viewed them as a workplace. I’m there to do a job, namely write accurately and fairly about the people, place and event that together make a weekend of racing. I also feel an obligation to be something of a fan advocate, a representative of and for the people who passionately love racing. They will most likely never have the opportunity to work a race as a media member. I have been given that opportunity, and I take seriously the belief that I should use the opportunity to provide insight and put a human face on the faces known to most solely through a television set. I’m not going to stop being a fan because I’m wearing press credentials that weekend.

That all said, when I am attending a race as media I’m working, and the areas set aside for the press are my office. In that weird and occasionally wonderful world known as the day job, I work in an office. Work is what I’m here to do, and while I do take breaks, when I’m working I hate being interrupted by the behavior, or more accurately the lack thereof, of others. This makes for many interesting moments each day, for around my office silence is golden only in that it’s as scarce as gold, or if you prefer a NASCAR illustration scarcer than Kyle Busch t-shirts at a Junior Nation rally. One swiftly learns to ignore that which distracts, or else the prospect of responding in a fashion resulting in you being the lead story on all major network news programs plus CNN doing a live feed looms large. That, to put it mildly, would be overreacting on your part regardless of how justified it may feel. Keep that “overreacting” word in mind; it’ll come into play later.

When I’m at work, no matter how much in vain it may be, my hope is there will be a professional environment. That said, far too often the definition of what is professional is far too limited. (Rather like how for many of us, our definition of God is too small.) Professionalism isn’t strictly a matter of how we conduct ourselves. It’s our interaction with others at the workplace. It’s how management treats employees both publicly and privately. And it’s how we interact with our customers and/or clients. An illustration of these points is how some feel closing the office door is full license for any subsequent behavior, including ranting and yelling. No, all it means is you’ve made it slightly more difficult for everyone else to overhear you being a clueless, classless jerk by ranting and yelling.

Traditional and new media (i.e. bloggers) have had a relationship over the past years veering from open hostility to uneasy acceptance. Generally speaking, bloggers think of themselves as peers to traditional media, with occasional forays into dismissing it as a refuge for bloviating dinosaurs. Meanwhile, traditional media thinks of bloggers as at best enthusiastic amateurs and at worst over-caffeinated self-inflated punks ignorant of proper journalistic practices, such as fairness, neutrality and decorum.

Clichés aside, there are clear differences between the two. A blogger has far more range within which to approach a given subject. They have no prohibition against weaving opinion throughout any discussion of facts. They can say what they like when they like however they like, involving themselves in the story whenever and however they like. It’s gonzo journalism without apology. The trade-off is how for the most part, blogging is limited to drawing on traditional media for source material rather than having direct access to news sources themselves. At least this has been the case.

Today, with growing acceptance by news sources of blogging and bloggers as legitimate conduits of information, we’re seeing direct invitations to bloggers to sit in the same seats as traditional media, covering events directly as they transpire. Taking this into the realm of NASCAR, bloggers — not all, but some — are being granted permission to participate in press conferences and access to areas that were previously strictly traditional media’s realm. With privilege comes responsibility; when so invited, bloggers are expected to conduct themselves professionally. No asking for autographs; no cheering; be polite and respectful to both the people being interviewed and those doing the interviewing. You’re there to write about the people and the competition, not say “look at MEEEEE!”

Fair enough. But playing the Queen of Hearts yelling “off with their heads” about members of new media when there is the slightest misstep on their part is ridiculous. The hysteria and histrionics with which what happened in Daytona has been written about is pathetic; a very poorly disguised unleashing of the fear-fueled contempt with which members of traditional media, simultaneously resentful of perceived amateurs being allowed among their ranks and terrified of how the ever-shrinking traditional media realm could well make them next in the unemployment line, see their world.

Was Tom Bowles wrong to cheer in the Daytona press box? Yes, and his hot mess of a post at Frontstretch defending his actions is thin gruel. But did his actions warrant losing his gig at Sports Illustrated, or even the volume of written tirades about how he committed what to some is the ultimate unforgivable sin? No. A simple, directly delivered “don’t do that” would have sufficed.

Finally, a quote from an earlier post:

While threats against a reporter, or anyone for that matter, over such a trivial matter as perceived bias against a favorite athlete are without excuse, the incident points out the danger all media members face when engaging with their audience via social media. A reporter’s obligation is to be neutral in the face of any story regardless of their beliefs or persuasion. It can be safely argued that regardless of actual intent, anything a reporter says or does publicly factors into the perception of that reporter’s fairness. They do not have the luxury of saying whatever they want whenever they want without it being used against them. In an era of ever-increasing open communication, comments made in jest are ofttimes best not made at all. It’s not fair, but it is reality.

In short, while it is appropriate for journalists to remind bloggers that when they are in the journalistic environment they should conduct themselves as journalists, it is equally appropriate for bloggers to remind journalists that there is no parallel for when journalists go a-bloggin’. So chill out.

AP sports writer Jenna Fryer

Jenna Fryer, who covers NASCAR and other sports for the Associated Press, decided against attending a get-together of fans and journalists who communicate via Twitter held prior to the 2011 Daytona 500 on Sunday, February 20th following an online exchange with a fan whose friend, who had RSVPd the event, threatened her with physical violence over a perceived slight against five-time NASCAR Sprint Cup champion Jimmie Johnson.

The get-together, known as a “tweet-up,” has become a regular occurrence on the NASCAR circuit. On the morning of the race, fans and journalists meet at a prearranged location to meet and greet each other. The tweet-up is a symbol of the growing camaraderie via social media between NASCAR fans and those who cover the sport.

A danger in such communication is the journalist who deliberately or unintentionally provokes fans of a particular driver via negative comments, and thefan who overreacts to criticism of their favorite driver be it intentional, such as the repeated negative commentary against Danica Patrick by SB Nation’s Jeff Gluck, or sarcastic without malice. Several journalists on the NASCAR beat, including Ms. Fryer and Jim Utter from the Charlotte Observer, routinely make comments on Twitter that on the surface reflect extreme bias against one driver or another yet have no bearing on their actual reporting.

The incident with Ms. Fryer, as played out on Twitter, started when she stated on Twitter: “For those going to tweet-up, sorry I’m absent. You can thank the girl who threatened to punch me in the face, and has RSVPd for today’s event.”

Ms. Fryer stated in subsequent tweets that Mr. Gluck could point out the person who made the threat (according to an individual who attended the tweet-up he declined to do so), and that the threat came via Twitter. This was followed by a multi-tweet exchange with a friend of the person over the original online incident, which took place last year during the season-ending race at Homestead.

The key tweet from Ms. Fryer was: “It was on Twitter at Homestead. You and two others, and I told you, ‘Fine, you win, I hate Jimmie (Johnson).’ And you thought I was being serious!”

While threats against a reporter, or anyone for that matter, over such a trivial matter as perceived bias against a favorite athlete are without excuse, the incident points out the danger all media members face when engaging with their audience via social media. A reporter’s obligation is to be neutral in the face of any story regardless of their beliefs or persuasion. It can be safely argued that regardless of actual intent, anything a reporter says or does publicly factors into the perception of that reporter’s fairness. They do not have the luxury of saying whatever they want whenever they want without it being used against them. In an era of ever-increasing open communication, comments made in jest are ofttimes best not made at all. It’s not fair, but it is reality.

(Cross-posted at Examiner.com.

A few days ago, Earl Wilson, public editor of the New York Times, wrote a column about his employer’s coverage of the Tucson shootings. Titled Time, the Enemy, it is a masterpiece of the non-apology.

A little background. Like most of you with one or more siblings, my parents were of zero tolerance when moments came where they found themselves being petitioned for redress of grievances, one offspring leveling a charge against another. The aggrieving party would swiftly and surely find themselves in a most uncomfortable situation, phrases such as “you march right over there and apologize” along with “don’t just say it — mean it” being prominently featured in the parental discourse. Granted, such times occasionally brought on maximum exertion of whatever youthful thespian skills were available, but by and large the apologies were sincere. Fear of what would take should they be anything but was a powerful motivation.

Alas, Mr. Wilson (no relation that I know of) apparently was raised in a different fashion.

Shall we?

Jim Roberts, the assistant managing editor who has helped create today’s NYTimes.com, likes to call it the 1440/7 news cycle — 1,440 minutes every day, seven days a week, each one of those minutes demanding news for delivery to a networked world.

See how hard these poor folk slave for us ungrateful cretins?

Unfortunately, during a few of those minutes on Jan. 8, The Times had the story wrong.

No! Really?

In that brief window of time, NYTimes.com was reporting that Representative Gabrielle Giffords was dead of gunshot wounds. The error and some other aspects of the coverage of the Tucson shootings illustrate how difficult it is in the current environment to be both timely and authoritative.

“Some” other aspects? Like, say, accusing the right in general and Sarah Palin in particular of inciting the shooting? Do tell. But we should give them a pass. After all, being timely and authoritative is h-a-r-r-r-d. (Authoritarian, not so much. But I digress.)

The circumstances were these: A major breaking news event, occurring on a Saturday afternoon with a small staff on duty, with print deadlines to worry about and a Web site that needed to be fed as fast and as frequently as possible.

And if we ingrates would start buying more ads with the Times instead of selling our junk on eBay they’d be fully staffed!

The Times’s first online posting came at 1:47 p.m., followed by two quick updates — at 1:53 and 2:16. These stories, pieced together from other news organizations that were on the ground in Tucson, reported the shootings and other basic facts, attributing word of the shooting to the congresswoman’s spokesman, C. J. Karamargin. At this point, her condition was described as “unclear.”

Timely! Authoritative! Letting others do the reporting for you! Gee, when bloggers do that they’re called lazy plagiarists.

At 2:27, though, the story was revised to say Ms. Giffords had been shot and killed, attributing the information to Mr. Karamargin and “news reports.” Lower in the story, those news reports were identified as coming from NPR and CNN. As it turned out, the information was incorrect. The Times compounded the error by appearing to attribute it in part to Ms. Giffords’s own spokesman, who was not the source of the error.

I recall an interview I did a few years ago with the late David Poole, who was the NASCAR beat writer for the Charlotte Observer. He used a phrase I’d never heard before: “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.” In other words, trust only to a point, but always verify. Too bad no one at the Times followed his advice.

Here’s how the error was made.

Bet the reason won’t be “we made a mistake — no excuses.”

It was hectic in the newsroom with many news reports flowing in as Kathleen McElroy, the day Web news editor, was trying to decide whether The Times was ready to report Giffords’s death. She decided against it and was telling Web producers to hold off reporting it in a news alert when J. David Goodman, who was writing the story, told her he had a few changes he wanted to make.

Don’t you understand? It was hectic! Which never happens at any other workplace.

Ms. McElroy said, “I should have looked at every change,” but she thought Mr. Goodman was referring to small stuff. Mr. Goodman told me he then erred by reporting Representative Giffords’s death in the lead as though The Times itself were standing behind the information. In any event, Ms. McElroy had said O.K. without seeing that change, so Mr. Goodman pushed the button.

So working for the Times requires the ability to play Tweedledee and Tweedledum when the pressure’s on? Gee, who knew.

The result was a news story with changes that were not edited. Less than 10 minutes later, a new story appeared with the words “and killed” stricken.

An old-time editor would have been striking McElroy and Goodman’s heads together.

“Nobody should self-publish,” said Philip B. Corbett, standards editor for The Times. “Everything should go through an editor. Ideally, it should go through two editors.”

Or, if you’re a blogger, go through everyone and their grandmother who won’t for a moment hesitate to call you out if you flub.

I agree with him, but that takes time. In the 1440/7 news cycle, and in the environment of the newsroom on Jan. 8, time seemed unavailable. On this particular day, things were happening quickly and simultaneously, and a mistake was made.

Um, dear New York Times. I bring news. You’re not the only news source in the western world. Should you be a few minutes behind others, no big. What is big is this: if you can’t follow your own rules, using the tyranny of the urgent as an excuse, why should we believe you double-check and fact-check everything even when you’re working at your own leisure?

The Tucson shootings afforded another, quite different illustration of the pressure of time in news coverage — not pressure measured in seconds and minutes, but pressure that news organizations feel to define the context of a story, to set up a frame for it, sometimes before the facts can be fully understood.

Because the narrative must be adhered to all times, inconvenient truths notwithstanding.

The Times’s day-one coverage in some of its Sunday print editions included a strong focus on the political climate in Arizona and the nation. For some readers — and I share this view to an extent — placing the violence in the broader political context was problematic.

Hmm. Might this be problematic because THERE WAS NO POLITICAL CONTEXT TO THE VIOLENCE?!!

C. Wenk, a reader in Alexandria, Va., criticized “an egregious rush to judgment in the Times coverage of the Arizona shooting, specifically aimed at linking the shooting to various conservative or Republican political rhetoric.”

Mr. or Ms. Wenk was being kind. The Times perpetrated a 100% falsehood, falsehood of the most vicious kind. It declared innocent people to in fact have blood on their hands. It was, is and always will be a filthy lie. One which the paper has not once apologized. Not once.

A second reader, Kevin O’Donnell of Greenbrae, Calif., saw it as a case of The Times jumping too quickly: “I understand the larger point about coarse speech raising the potential for violence. By offering that debate within hours of events, doesn’t The Times risk starting at the conclusion end of the argument?”

No, it risks revealing its pathetic bigotry against and hatred of Sarah Palin. Which we already knew, but had not previously been revealed to such an obscene extent.

The Times had a lot of company, as news organizations, commentators and political figures shouldered into an unruly scrum battling over whether the political environment was to blame.

Didn’t the “they did it too” excuse get thrown out in grade school for these people? Apparently not.

Meanwhile, opportunities were missed to pick up on evidence — quite apparent as early as that first day — that Jared Lee Loughner, who is charged with the shootings, had a mental disorder and might not have been motivated by politics at all.

And why were the opportunities missed? Because the Times was and is addicted to its own meme: conservatives bad, liberals good, Palin worst of all. Note how even in the face of overwhelming evidence there was zero political motivation to Loughner’s madness the Times still slips in the insinuation (“… might not have been…”) that it was correct after all.

“If I were a reporter on this story, my very first call would have been to a mental health professional willing to consider the nature of Mr. Loughner’s illness,” Max Etchemendy of East Palo Alto, Calif., wrote. “The ‘political’ angle has been beaten to death, and ‘medical’ angle has been ignored completely.”

Mr. Etchemendy should work for the Times.

So why does a story get framed this way?

Here, let me answer that for you. Because you’re addicted to your mantra, you don’t give a rat’s ass about the truth and you’re disgusting biased hacks.

Journalism educators characterize this kind of framing as a storytelling habit — one of relating new facts to an existing storyline — and also as a reflex of news organizations that are built to handle some topics well, and others less well.

I do believe “less well” translates into any story involving those pesky facts.

Jerry Ceppos, dean of the journalism school at the University of Nevada, Reno, said journalists’ impulse to quickly impose a frame on a story is “genetic.”

Try pathetic. Just report the story. We’re not so flippin’ stupid we need you to put things into context for us, you condescending arrogant self-worshiping jerk.

“Journalists developed automatic framing protocols generations ago because of the need to report quickly,” he said. “Today’s hyper-deadlines, requiring journalists to report all day long and all night long, made that genetic disposition even more dominant.”

So it’s okay to lie when you’re in a hurry?

To be fair, there were some good reasons to steer the coverage initially in this direction.

I was unaware that “rubbing our hands together in glee that it looks like we’ve finally got the opportunity to nail those racist violent teabaggers and especially Caribou Barbie” qualified as a good reason.

As Rick Berke, the national editor, said: “Our coverage early on was broad and touched everything from the possible shooter to the victims to the reaction to, yes, the political climate in Arizona.

Which had not a single thing to do with the shooting, but hey — it made for some awesome editorials!

“By our count, there were 49 stories in the paper the first six days after the tragedy, of which only 14 were political in nature.

The fact they were pure slander is apparently negated by there being fewer of them.

“But it would be ridiculous for us to neglect that. After all, a politician was shot in the head while meeting with constituents.

And Sarah Palin owns a gun. Obvious connection!

“That same lawmaker had her office vandalized during an especially rancorous campaign.

Which is reprehensible. However, without proof it was in any fashion connected to the shooting, irrelevant.

“And after the shooting the sheriff called his state the capital of hatred and bigotry.”

The same sheriff that five minutes on Google would reveal is a partisan Democratic hack.

Still, I think the intense focus on political conflict — not just by The Times — detracted from what has emerged as the salient story line, that of a mentally ill individual with lawful access to a gun.

That’s it, then? That’s your response to flat-out lying? Be thankful my Mom is in heaven now, Mr. Wilson, or else she’d grab you by the ear with one hand, Paul Krugman with the other, and march you right over to Sarah Palin to apologize.

But no. Not you. You’ll never apologize. You lied because it suited your purpose. You falsely accused because it correlated with your despising any and all things conservative. And when your lies and false accusations were exposed, you ignored it like it never happened. You hurled your bile, and when it was proved to be utterly untrue washed your hands and went on, believing that a mealy-mouthed non-apology is more than sufficient to cover your sins. Guess again.

Whether covering the basic facts of a breaking story or identifying more complex themes, the takeaway is that time is often the enemy. Sometimes the best weapon against it is to ignore it, and use a moment to consider the alternatives.

Gee, wish I could use the clock as an alibi.

Mr. Wilson, kindly get lost and don’t be found until you find integrity.

P.S. The pictures have nothing to do with the song (“Portrait of an Apology” by Jars of Clay), but they’re nice nature shots.

• Headline: Planned Sarah Palin CSU speech stirs California protest (CSU stands for California State University, of which there are several; this particular one being Stanislaus). Were the speech being given by Michelle Obama, think any of the mortally offended parties would raise so much as a peep? Although they do have marshmallow minds…

• Headline, in the News section: Some right-wingers ignore facts as they rewrite U.S. history Mind you, this is in the News section, not Op/Ed. Nope, no bias here, no sirree…

• Back to Sarah Palin for a moment. I am not fathoming how some right wing bloggers (*coughdanriehlcough*) are getting off on criticizing her for insisting her name not be associated with a GOP fundraiser running concurrent to the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, at which she’ll be speaking. She isn’t participating in the fundraiser. Of course she doesn’t want her name being used as a means of getting people involved in something with which she isn’t involved. It’s the same thing as a concert promoter at some local club listing U2 on the bill when they’re actually playing that night at the football stadium across town. You don’t do that. So why is she being criticized?

Anyway, yesterday Hewitt had as one of his guests Dan Riehl, mention of whom has previously appeared in this quiet little place. The cause for Riehl’s presence was a blog post he had written the previous day roundly criticizing Hewitt for raising a ruckus about how the GOP has been spending money on (ahem) “lobbying” efforts at business establishments where the hard stuff isn’t exactly defined as whole milk instead of low fat accompanied by double chocolate chip cookies rather than regular prior to a quiet evening of Bible study and prayer. As Riehl wrote, Hewitt was being a Puritan prude. Pinched in. A prig, even. In short, Riehl played the provocateur. Positively perturbing!

Leaving the letter P aside for a moment, along with Planet P Project unless you’re a diehard Tony Carey fan, based on his blog Riehl lives to push buttons. He treats Twitter in a similar fashion. Witness this tweet from earlier today:

Running? Haste makes waste! RT @huffingtonpost: Man takes running leap off Empire State Building (UPDATES) http://tinyurl.com/yffzw4z

Because, you know, nothing screams funny like suicide.

Snark aside, what is the point of such exercises on Riehl’s part? Other than the obvious one of drawing attention to himself as he plays the Beltway wannabe game. This furthers the debate? This makes a case for conservative politics? Right. And my pet unicorn is in the backyard dancing with bejeweled butterflies.

This isn’t about “so what does it take to get on Hewitt’s show.” If taking potshots at people was the sole requirement for traditional media inclusion I’d have more air time than President Obama.

It’s about the people with whom one chooses to associate and be associated.

I’m not preaching isolationism or insisting that everyone you work with pass some kind of holiness litmus test. What is being said comes straight from Scripture: “Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: ‘I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people.’ ‘Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.’ ‘I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the Lord Almighty.’”

If we call ourselves followers of Christ, and we believe our political views are shaped by our faith and His teachings, shouldn’t the company we keep in pursuit of winning over hearts and minds, establishing policies and installing policies along with practices thereof, honor our primary commitment to Jesus? If He is Who He says He is, and He is not Savior alone but also Lord, how then can we promulgate the deliberate sinner or boastful unbeliever? To do so is saying, in deeds if not words, the ends justify the means. Good luck finding Biblical affirmation for that notion.

We live in troubling, troubled times. Acting like the world in order to combat the world isn’t going to cut it. We need to stand firm in love, not compromising our beliefs for the sake of political expediency. Politics come and go. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, today and forever.

Choose your associates carefully.

P.S. The list of fifty or so ways to say “don’t bother the…” in the first paragraph comes from a sign at the San Diego Zoo imploring visitors to leave the animals alone.

P.P.S. Speaking of Tony Carey…

1. A report on the state GOP gathering in San Jose, focusing on the Senate primary. First words out of the reporter: “Front runner Tom Campbell…” Really? I mean, really? The reporter then proceeded to say Campbell’s speech sucked, Carly Fiorina’s rocked, and as to Chuck Devore… not a word save for how he ripped Fiorina’s latest ad. Oh, and making sure the word “conservative” was prominently featured before his name.

Because, you know, conservatives are evil.

2. The next story was ostensibly about the unraveling of the bogus runaway Prius story of a few days ago. Which of course explains why the second half of the report did nothing but dwell on Toyota’s recent troubles, starting with (quote) “the story appeared to have added to Toyota’s recent problems…”

Next on-air item?

A Toyota ad.

Way to make those advertisers feel wanted, kiddos.

“Donate to what?”

“Not what. Who. To my favorite writer. He wants to cover the championship game between Alabama and Texas.”

“Him and nine million other sportswriters… but why is he asking for donations?”

“So he can afford to go.”

“I see. Well then, looks like he’ll have to settle for watching it on television like the rest of us.”

“But he can’t report on it that way.”

“Funny. I usually manage some pretty decent write-ups on NASCAR without going to each race.”

“But I want to read his take on things while at the game.”

“And I want a mint condition Gibson Les Paul Deluxe. Guess what? Can’t afford it. So I live without. Unfortunate that your favorite reporter will have to do the same. Ain’t life a bust? And asking for donations to go to a football game that just ‘happens’ to have his favorite team playing for the championship? Come on. This isn’t about ‘reporting.’ It’s about wanting to go to the game and using reporting on it as an excuse.”

“So you’re accusing him of lying.”

“About what?”

“About why he wants to go to the game.”

“I don’t see him with a honkering to go to the Poinsettia Bowl between Cal and Utah. Don’t tell me his reasons are entirely journalistic. Or primarily. He wants to go to the game. Period.”

“That’s beside the point.”

“Come again?”

“Whether his favorite team is involved is beside the point. He wants to go as a journalist.”

“Why?”

“To offer his unique perspective on the game.”

“Oh, thank the lucky stars for that. Poor game wouldn’t get a whisper of coverage otherwise.”

“You don’t think he’s a great reporter?”

“To quote you, that’s beside the point. The point is his primary reason for begging is so he can see his favorite team in the championship game for free. It has nothing to do with reporting.”

“So you’re accusing him of lying.”

“What are you, a walking tape loop? Fine, I’m calling BS on the whole thing.”

“You don’t believe he’ll do reporting while he’s there?”

“How many times do you want me to answer the same question? I’m sure he will. He has to, since that’s why he says he’s going. But do I believe that’s the primary reason he’s going? No.”

“Do you think every other reporter who’s going wants the assignment for journalistic purposes only?”

“Yeah, and if everyone else was jumping off a bridge… same logic. What difference does the motivation of others make? We’re not talking about them. We’re talking about one individual begging for money so he can go watch a football game.”

“Well, all those other reporters are begging for money too. It’s called ‘advertising.’”

“And you’re called thick as a brick. The people and businesses who buy ads in newspapers or magazines, or on television or radio aren’t doing it for the sole purpose of seeing Joe or Jane Sportswriter’s byline. They’re doing so to reach potential customers. The only concerns they have about the medium’s content is having no controversy brought on them via association with a particular channel and how many people will it reach.”

“By your logic, you should never buy books or music.”

“The connection, oh pray tell?”

“You don’t believe in paying people for their art.”

“Let’s try this again. The connection?”

“You think people should provide their services for free.”

“There is nothing in common between paying an artist for their work and a journalist begging for funds so they can go watch a football game under the excuse of reporting on it!”

“Don’t you agree there’s an art to reporting? That it’s a craft?”

“There is a huge difference between that and creating a work of art. Unless you somehow equate a new U2 album with some joker in Rolling Stone talking about it. Slight difference, don’t you think? Assuming you ever do.”

“Well, he wants to report on the game and that’s all that matters.”

“So let him get a job and pay his own way.”

“But I want to read his reporting from the game!”

“Did I mention the guitar I want? Don’t see me begging for funds to buy it so I can ‘report’ on how it sounds.”

“You’re not nice.”

“Possibly. I also paid my own way every step along the way for the book. Which is a tad more important in the grand scheme of things than a football game. Now, run along fanboy. I’m busy. Some of us have work to do. That has nothing to do with pretending to work so we can root root root for the home team in person while asking others to pay for it.”