With the steady stream of bad news for the Obama administration, Drudge kicks POTUS when he’s down. To begin, the top story is this piece by Politico’s Jake Sherman and Lauren French. The piece highlights the scandalous couple of days that POTUS has been facing. The Drudge headline reads “When It Rains…,” and has a photo of Obama in a downpour.

He then takes it a few steps further and adds three more shots of POTUS getting caught in the rain. Get it? Like a downpour.

(A Sprinkling of Things we Think you Ought to Know…)

Crawford Commemorates Mother’s Day – To celebrate Mother’s Day, Craig Crawford is giving his readers the chance to vote for “Favorite TV Mom.” Crawford has an extensive list of 15 different TV Moms. Some are timeless, like Edith Bunker from All in the Family and Marion Cunningham from “Happy Days.” Others are a little less conventional, like Marge Simpson and Nancy Botwin from “Weeds.” Vote now at www.craigcrawford.com.

Cicada Nation – Yes, the cicadas are coming. Yes, people will freak out. No, it’s not the end of the world. Just don’t mention that to Mother Jones, which lists their story on the political history of cicadas as the “Top Story” in their Political Mojo newsletter. While everyone seems to be talking cicadas these days, it’s hardly a POLITICAL news item.

Major Garrett Continues to Battle Illness – Earlier this week, CBS’s Chief White House Correspondent Major Garrett announced on Twitter that he was feeling a little under the weather. Even Twitchy noticed.

Tweeps, was off the air & off the grid yesterday & will be for a few days. I need to wrestle this case of double pneumonia to the ground.

— Major Garrett(@MajorCBS) May 7, 2013

Double pneumonia sounds pretty hardcore. Since it’s been a few days, we reached out to Garrett, who tells FBDC, “I’m on the mend. I’m taking more drugs than Elvis but doing fewer shows. I also have a sinus infection with the reach and aggression of the 19th century British Navy. Between the twin maladies, I feel older than 50 and slightly younger than Yoda.” Rest up, Major. And if you just read this, you might want to Lysol your computer. Just to be safe.

(A Sprinkling of Things we Think you Ought to Know…)

Will on the Hill – Monday night was the annual “Will on the Hill” event for the Shakespeare Theatre Company. It’s an annual event that gathers politicians, journalists and other D.C. insiders to put on a performance that pairs elements of Williams Shakespeare with modern-day references.

According to their website, “proceeds from the event support STC’s many education, artistic and community outreach programs including in-school workshops and online learning resources that inspire new and diverse audiences and deepen the connection to classical theatre in learners of all ages.” One of the members of the cast was The Hill’s Managing Editor, Bob Cusack. Cusack tweeted this startling photo of himself moments before taking the stage. Turns out, acting is in Cusack’s blood. He tells FBDC, “It was my first time performing in Will on the Hill and brought back memories of when my parents had an off, off, off Broadway theater company in New York City. Last night I did Shakespeare, but back then it was Jack in Jack and the Beanstalk and Agatha Christie plays.” Aside from Jack, Cusack was an extra “Clear and Present Danger” and “Game Change.”

The Tea Party says farewell to a longtime supporter. Read more

One man’s cut is another man’s dip is another man’s “Sorry, I’m not hearing anything.”

On Monday NYT‘s Brian Stelter reported on a bit from an upcoming book by Bloomberg View‘s Jonathan Alter. The part in question alleges that just days before the 2012 presidential election, nearly two months after terrorist attacks on a U.S. consulate in Libya, FNC CEO Roger Ailes personally called one of his channel’s producers and ordered that Geraldo Rivera‘s mic be cut.

In the segment in which Rivera appeared, he criticized his colleague Eric Bolling for what he said was politicizing the attack. As the segment droned on for seven minutes, Ailes ordered the muzzling of Rivera, according to Alter’s book.

Stelter wrote that he sought comment from FNC, which never returned his request (not unusual for the channel’s illustriously choosy PR department). Instead, a spokesperson for FNC went to Mediaite and gave them their side: It was that FNC Executive Vice President of Programming Bill Shine, who called up the producer and ordered not Rivera’s mic be cut, but that the show’s hosts move on to another, less emotionally-charged subject. (The next segment was on immigration, not at all an polarizing topic).

Rivera denied Alter’s account in a tweet. Alter replied, asking why Rivera’s “office” didn’t deny the claim when he called to ask about it. “Specifically to Jonathan Alter, I like you mate,” Rivera countered, “but you never spoke with me about Benghazi and you never asked if Roger Ailes cut my mic.”

Mediaite‘s Andrew Kirell posted the full video from the segment in question, noting that “At no point during the segment is Rivera inaudible.”

Oliver Willis over at the anti-FNC Media Matters disagreed. He also posted the full video, claiming to hear “a change in Rivera’s microphone volume.”

What you can take away from watching and listening to either clip… Read more

We’ll take a break from examining the weekly ramblings in Gene Weingarten‘s column for WaPo to look at his Twitter feed. When we checked in on him, we were VERY upset to learn that Gene has changed his Twitter pic from a piece of poop to the picture on the right. It’s a cartoon caricature of Gene Shalit Weingarten on the cover of GQ magazine.

After recovering from the trauma of seeing a poopless Weingarten, we found that he’s using Twitter to play grammar police to fellow journalists. On Monday he went after HuffPost’s Elise Foley because of her Twitter bio. It says, “Politics and immigration reporter for HuffPost. Jessica Alba tweeted one of my articles once–it’s all been downhill from there.”

What’s wrong with that? Read more

Dear Jill,

Attention is swirling around Politico media writer Dylan Byers‘ story about the New York Times newsroom and how you’re a little too brusque for some tastes. The piece paints Dean Baquet as a perfectly charming managing editor who punches walls when angry. Who doesn’t like an editor who punches his fist through walls? We all want to see this at least a few times in our journalistic lifetimes, don’t we?

And I’m actually being serious.

What I like about Byers’ story is it takes you into the underbelly of a newsroom and gives you a slice of what employees really say and think. These stories are rare and entertaining reads because the weirdest, most spectacular stuff happens in newsrooms. What I hate about it is that it implies that editors and reporters need to be perfectly well-behaved human beings who are never supposed to “blow up” in a meeting. They must work out the tone of their voice. They must anticipate how each person feels. As Byers describes it, your attitude leaves employees feeling “demoralized” and as though you don’t care. Your absence makes them feel forgotten, rudderless. Do NYT staffers need office teddy bears? If the end result of Byers’ story is that you start being nice to everyone, I’m really going to well, punch a fist through my living room wall.

I find it humorous that you went all Miranda Priestly on the photographer and told him you didn’t like a picture on the homepage and then said, “I don’t know why you’re still here. If I were you, I’d leave now and change the photo.” It’s like yeah, get out of my face and fix it. I’m no feminist, but this stuff makes my blood start bubbling. If Baquet had said this, he’d be funny, charming. But you? You’re a shrew. So what if you’re “condescending” and “stubborn?” They’ll live. Unless they feel like doing your job, which is infinitely harder, more time consuming and irritating than theirs, you get to act that way. And by the way, f–k their feelings. Oh, they don’t like you speaking to them like that? Change careers.

Journalism isn’t about feelings or settling for a mediocre product. If that results in blunt talk in a newsroom, so be it. Do we really want our newsrooms to be well-behaved sanctuaries where no one ever gets pissed off or airs grievances in the worst ways imaginable? Do we want editors to be people who only politely tell us that our writing is sometimes sh-t?

I’ve had a few editors over the years who didn’t really care for me (don’t be so shocked). In one case, I didn’t want him reading my stories — he was a crappy editor (they’re out there) and there was another I preferred because he cleaned up my clutter like a surgeon, slicing out words and graphs without losing my voice. Just to be an a–hole, Editor #1 kept the file open so that Preferred Editor #2 couldn’t open it. In another instance, an editor nearly stroked out in the newsroom because again, I had a preferred editor who I wanted to look at my copy. Yes, I’m exaggerating his physical state. But he was old and his face turned fire-engine red as he stood and screamed at me at the top of his lungs about the inappropriateness of me going over his head. Sure, he was “stubborn and condescending,” and his wife gave me dirty looks at office parties. But would I have wanted it any other way or for him not to flip out? Hell no. Flip out more, please. The entertainment value is high and it’s a scene I’ll never forget.

Flatulence and fingernails in the keyboards are also hard memories to destroy. Read more

National Journal national reporter and formerly the publication’s Editor-in-Chief Ron Fournier has found the formula for making his articles go viral: Write about his experiences with past presidents in the most sticky sweet way possible and hit publish.

As George W. Bush is on a media tour this week to promote the opening of his library at Southern Methodist University in Texas, Fournier wrote a piece Tuesday lauding the still-unpopular former president as “a good man.”

“He remembered names of the spouses and children of his staff, and insisted that hard work at the White House not be an excuse to let family life suffer,” Fournier wrote.

The article (a piece on “presidential humanity,” as NJ called it in its daily newsletter) is as much about Fournier as it is about Bush and Bill Clinton, Bush’s predecessor. One of the many self-referential anecdotes in Fournier’s piece:

One steamy summer day in 1999, then-Gov. George W. Bush called me with an exclusive interview and interrupted my first question. “What’s all that noise in the background, Fournier?” he asked.

“I’m at the pool with my kids, governor.”

Bush replied, “Then what the hell are you doing answering your phone?”

The article earned Fournier a guest spot on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” to discuss it. It was passed around on Twitter with readers (mostly conservatives) calling it “compelling,” “uplifting” and “an interesting perspective.” It landed a link on Drudge, headlined, “FOURNIER: Go Ahead, Admit It: Bush Is A Good Man…” As if Fournier’s name in all caps legitimizes an opinion at least half the country already holds.

Asked what makes his commentaries on Bush garner so much attention, Fournier… Read more

The unbelievable cover from The American Spectator magazine says, “Sarah Palin’s Rack.” Now, if you’re anything like me, your head went to a magical, but probably inappropriate place. What the hell could the headline possibly mean? Apparently, it’s an examination of Sarah Palin’s record of electing conservatives, but the cover doesn’t specify that. It just reads like low-rent, soft-core fantasy porn.

This wouldn’t be the first time that a publication has cashed in on Palin’s sex appeal. The former V.P. hopeful famously accused Newsweek of sexism when they showed a picture of her (that she posed for) in running gear.

Maybe this leads to a spike in sales for the magazine by cashing in on whatever appeal Palin still claims to possess. But between this and the return of Anthony Weiner to Twitter, the jokes just write themselves.

As of now, this is a picture of a hardcover version of the magazine. We expect it to be online in the coming days.

UPDATE: The online version can be found here.

Ask anyone who watches the news and they’ll admit that this wasn’t the finest hour for the media. CNN botching facts, NYPost putting pictures of innocent men on their cover, InfoWars saying this is a government coverup. OK, it’s a stretch to refer to the jerkoffs at InfoWars as “media,” but, suffice it to say, it got ugly out there.

Welcome to the wee hours of Friday morning, when a manhunt got underway to bring the alleged Boston bombers to justice, and Twitter tried to keep up. It was a great source of breaking news and information. It’s also an incredible way to spread total bullshit very quickly. In the midst of everything, some people just didn’t know WHAT the hell to tweet. We’ve rounded up choice comments that left us scratching our heads and wondering what the hell they were trying to say. Read more

No judgment here.

But last night Twitter was a curious place to be as we watched clusters of journalists needle one another and, in some cases, go for the throat without real just cause. Sharpened nerves. An inability to piece together what happened. Heightened tensions in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings.

They were primed to fight. For example, since when do retweets really mean endorsements? Really never, except for last night when anything could spark a feud.

So much for the wise and largely unheeded advice from Ruth Graham, contributing writer to The Boston Globe‘s ideas section; freelancer for Slate and The Atlantic: “Guys, if you see a tweet that pisses you off today because it’s rude or dumb or political, maybe consider just ignoring it?”

What, and ignore the chance to take your frayed nerves out on someone else like a rabid dog? We’re vaguely reminded of Glenn Close in the bloody bathtub scene of “Fatal Attraction” and her chilling remark, “I mean, I’m not going to be ignored, Dan.”

Among the two big clusters of brawls was another “Glenn.” This one, Politico‘s Glenn Thrush, who attempted to school CNN’s Chris Cuomo on proper bomb coverage. Cuomo wrote, 1. “#Boston – latest. Two bombs exploded. A 3rd pkg was blown up by auth’s. As many as 3 other possible devices being investigated.” 2. “#Boston authorities still searching. Two crude bombs with ball bearings or shrapnel went off. Other pkgs found may have been non-explosive.” 3. “Being told at this point not ruling out one actor theory.”

Thrush lashed out. “Wait–so how did one guy plant the 8 bombs u told us about earlier? …Not being a wise ass — asking u to think before u press send,” Thrush wrote to Cuomo. The Atlantic‘s Jeffrey Goldberg promptly backed Thrush: “Now on Twitter, Glenn Thrush is teaching Chris Cuomo about journalism. …Just to be clear, I was complimenting Glenn Thrush for teaching Chris Cuomo about the dangers of spreading unconfirmed information.” Cuomo ignored his critics and didn’t respond to any of them.

The other snarl was Politico‘s Dylan Byers versus ClearChannel‘s Colby Hall and BuzzFeed‘s Andrew Kaczynski. Byers, who’s usually pretty mild-mannered on Twitter, and Kaczynski, who occasionally enjoys subtle antagonizing, eventually seemed to warm back up to each other, but not without a few blistering moments when BuzzFeed Editor-in-Chief and Twitter father figure Ben Smith, who at different points hired them both, dove in to effectively say, ‘You’re both right.’ Come on Ben, in a good Twitter fight, opposing sides are never both right! But this morning he declared to some involved parties: “No haters.” But life on Twitter is not always so civilized.

Some more spiritual healing ignored by all: “A crisis depletes your emotions,” wrote megachurch pastor Rick Warren, whose popularly isn’t exactly soaring in the gay community. “You must intentionally replenish them. Make a list of what restores you and do those things.”

Restore? How about a brawl on what the real meaning of “retweet” is. Is it a ringing endorsement or sharing facts or innocently presenting a contrasting viewpoint? If you’re Politico‘s Byers, it’s the latter as he shared a diary piece from the conservative RedState; if you’re ClearChannel‘s Hall it’s the former and it appeared to seriously piss him off. And then Byers used profanity and the whole thing got U.G.L.Y.

Colby Hall: “Why promote some random wacko consipiracy [sic] theory?”

Dylan Byers: “Because it’s indicative of what some on far-right are thinking. will matter later.”

Colby Hall: “Or you are just promoting the acceptance of a half-baked theory that is better left ignored.”

Dylan Byers: “Or you are full of shit.”

Colby Hall: “Whoa!”

Dylan Byers: “I’m not promoting anything. I’m showing parameters of conversation.”

Colby Hall: “Now who’s full of shit?”

Dylan Byers: “You think I’m endorsing fringe speculation because I take note of it? I doubt that.”

Colby Hall: But you didn’t just “take note of it”…you brought attention to it by linking to it. so yeah, you promoted it.

Dylan Byers: “Providing link to an article you don’t necessarily agree with is not promoting it. It’s referencing it.”

Colby Hall: “But editorial judgment isn’t just what you link — it’s what you chose not to link to.”

This is about when Andrew Kaczynski jumped into the fray: Read more