In August, I explored the rising role of humor in progressive political discourse in an In These Times piece titled In Politics, Comedy is Central.

“We now routinely watch the mainstream media with the expectation that we’re being spun,” I ask, “but when did we start watching comedy for the real deal?”

The rise of shows like “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert Report” have helped to effect a permanent shift in the public’s relationship to the media.

Rather than foster debilitating cynicism, these comedians-cum-newscasters reflect a contemporary mode of communication in which irony is not antithetical to—but synonymous with—authenticity. We have moved beyond the much-heralded (and lamented) GenX cynicism of the late ’90s. Sarcasm, doubt and distance have become default positions, havens in a world of fundamentalisms, false promises and lies.

a short monthly column on media and politics that Tracy and I coauthored for In These Times:

Sound Byte Science

In July, Bush’s veto of a bill on stem-cell funding stirred up a flurry of high-profile science news stories. For the most part, however, science gets the shaft: on average, science stories make up only two percent of network news coverage. And, according to a recent book by Chronicle of Higher Education writer Vincent Kiernan, the sliver of information that does reach the larger public may be narrowed yet further by the entrenched practices of science journalism.

In Embargoed Science, Kiernan examines how a handful of elite journals generate both buzz and scientific consensus by enforcing an “embargo” on findings— providing journalists with advance access to journal articles under the condition that they not report on them until a specified date. Many journals also apply the “Ingelfinger Rule,” pioneered by New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) editor Franz Ingelfinger in 1969. This policy decrees that “a given journal will not publish a scientific paper that has already been disseminated, particularly through the popular press.”

While journal editors say that the rule helps to limit coverage of findings that aren’t appropriately peer-reviewed, Kiernan notes that such practices just reinforce the already-disproportionate influence of major publications like NEJM, The Journal of the American Medical Association, Science, and Nature. Embargoes are as much about marketing as about research integrity— the cozy relationship between beat journalists and journal editors means that those journals end up as the source for the bulk of popular science stories In practice, this means that important scientific breakthroughs may take longer to reach the public, and that scientists are left with “few options for cooperating with reporters who learn about research through independent channels.”

Critics of the system say that it restricts the free flow of information and influences which stories rise to the top. By providing “information subsidies,” and artificial time pegs, science journals bias the news in much the same way that the White House slants coverage by restricting access to political heavyweights.

While eliminating embargos might make journalists have to scramble, the end result would be more original, honest reporting. “The embargo,” he concludes, “should go.”

a short monthly column on media and politics that Tracy and I coauthored for In These Times:

Swiftboating Murtha

After becoming media darlings in 2004 for their public relations assassination of Sen. John Kerry, the group Vets for the Truth (formerly known as Vietnam Vets for

the Truth) has turned its attention to “swiftboating” a new target–Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.). Murtha, a Democrat known for hawkishness (and the first Vietnam veteran elected to the House), made waves last November when he called for the redeployment of troops from Iraq, and again in early 2006 when he claimed that there was a cover-up of the massacre in Haditha. Conservatives swung into action.

“Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America. So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party,” said former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan.

Building on the “Kerry Lied,” theme, the online attacks have moved from the now-defunct Murthalied.com to the current BootMurtha.com, where the mission is to “bring Murtha’s outrageous lies to the attention of the voters of the Twelfth Congressional District of Pennsylvania.”

Murthalied.com was the brainchild of Amanda P. Doss, the woman behind Operation Street Corner, a site dedicated to, “The Vietnam Veterans’ Grassroots Campaign Against John Kerry and Jane Fonda, traitors to our country.” Sean-Paul Kelly, editor of the blog, The Agonist, first investigated Doss’ involvement, and then publicly posted her e-mail (which Kelly said was widely available). Doss received many negative responses, and Murthalied.com quickly disappeared. Doss then joined forces with John “Proud to Be Swiftboating” Bailey of VFTT at Boot Murtha. Bailey defines swiftboating in his own special way: “Exposing the lies, deceit, and fraud of self-glorifying public officials or candidates for public office who exaggerate their military service by lying about their feats of heroism and combat wounds.”

As of July 13, the Web site had raised $6,223 in their quest to reach $7,750 by July 14 in order to mail all the veterans in Murtha’s district. To learn more about the Murtha Swiftboating, see blogger Taylor Marsh’s detailed post at The Patriot Project.