Something’s fishy — Normally we love fish-related stories, for obvious reasons, but this one scares us a little. If you’re a male who’s thinking of skinny-dipping in Scandinavia, you may want to think again. As CNN’s Leslie Holland reports, an exotic species of fish that has a habit of chomping on testicles has infiltrated the Danish/Swedish strait of Oresund. A “friendly cousin” of the piranha, the Pacu is actually a vegetarian and uses its large teeth to crush nuts, but sometimes bites the wrong type of nuts after mistaking testicles for their favorite snack. The fish is native to South America and could have been brought to Scandinavia by “amateur aquarium owners and fish farmers.” Don’t worry though, the Fishbowl is still Pacu-free.

The real Weiner film — We recently laid out some damn good ideas for an Anthony Weiner movie, but as TWT’s Cheryl K. Chumley reports, a real documentary may be in the works. In what could be only speculation, Chumley writes that Weiner has been close to MTV filmmaker Josh Kreigman, who has been recording nonstop for the past few months. The NYC mayoral candidate has also been carrying a black microphone box in his back pocket. According to the New York Post, and Weiner campaign officials, Weiner’s filming is only for a television ad. Kreigman, who used to be Weiner’s congressional district director, wouldn’t comment. We’re hoping to see a documentary soon on MTV, because we, at least, can’t get enough Weiner and please don’t take that the wrong way!

Read more

Politico

Read more

WaPo

TWT

Read more

Weiner lasting more than four months is doubtful — When Anthony Weiner announced his bid for New York City mayor, his campaign was about a fresh start and using his past to learn from his mistakes. He had mostly been laying low, and it appeared that NYC voters were in support of Weiner’s political comeback. But, as Politico’s Edward-Isaac Dovere and Maggie Haberman report, July has not been a good month for the Weiner as another sexting scandal emerged with the now infamously porntastically-named Sydney Elaine Leathers. Most recently, his dismissal of the opinions of the Clintons, who Dovere and Haberman label “the first family of Democratic politics, cements his nose dive that he has little chance of stopping before the Sept. 10 primary. A recent poll puts him in fourth place and shows that 53 percent of New Yorkers want him to drop out of the race.

Why you should read it: Weiner’s campaign has definitely suffered from continued blows, and this piece looks at how he went from a strong mayoral candidate to a running joke.

About those Twitter messages — Speaking of Weiner, Charles C. Johnson of The Daily Caller reports on the varying accounts of the mayoral candidate’s communication with a then-17-year-old girl in 2011. The girl, Margaret Henning, and her family offer differing accounts of just how many messages Weiner sent Henning and what the contents of those messages were. Henning’s mother says he sent two messages, an unnamed family member says he sent three and Weiner says he sent five. Wow, did he foolishly high ball that one that? Leading up to the communication, Henning had made public on Twitter her obsessive love of Weiner, tweeting things like “HE IS MINE ALL MINE HE LOVES ME AND NO ONE ELSE ILY ILY ILY!!!” She also made public her love of caps lock and lack of punctuation. After expressing her Weiner love, he followed her on Twitter until he was called out by Twitter users, but followed her again after multiple tweets begging him to do so. The Daily Caller also pulled some pretty great pictures from Henning’s Facebook page to publish with the story.

Why you should read it: Henning had a very high school-like crush on the then-congressman, which Weiner apparently couldn’t resist after seeing his Twitter handle in so many tweets. Make sure you read the tweets at the end.

Read more

TWT

WaPo

Read more

About that NYT article — Jonathan Van Meter’s piece on Anthony Weiner for the April 2013 issue of NY Times Magazine was well received. The story with the headline, “Anthony Weiner and Huma Abedin’s Post-Scandal Playbook,” narrated Weiner’s fall from Congress, his life after and his first steps back into politics. But WaPo’s Erik Wemple argues that the story is now “being blamed for enabling Weiner’s political rehabilitation.” Weiner told Van Meter that he was “eying” the mayor’s race and enlisted the help of pollster David Binder. As many journalists do when writing profiles, Van Meter immersed himself into Weiner and Abedin’s life. But, Wemple argues, immersion wasn’t the key to this story. Instead, skepticism should have ruled his reporting. Van Meter didn’t question Weiner on when he ceased having those online sexy chatfests or phone sex, which we now know he continued having after he resigned.

Why you should read it: The NYT piece drew well deserved praise, even from the likes of Poltico Editor-in-Chief John Harris, when it was first published, but had Van Meter pushed Weiner on whether he had halted the online relationships, it could have been a very different story.

Hindsight is 20/20 — In an op-ed for Scoop San Diego, Doug Curlee says he has covered Bob Filner, San Diego’s pervert mayor, since he was elected to school board in 1979. He says that he and many other San Diego journalists knew how abrasive and abusive he was throughout his political career. Now that Filner is facing a slew charges of sexual harassment, Curlee questions why the media, including himself, didn’t investigate Filner earlier. He doesn’t know the answer, but offers a few suggestions: the media could have been lazy, because Filner had established himself as a Democratic power or because Filner controlled votes and campaign funds of “large and ever-growing organized labor groups, the unions.” None seem like good reasons to not investigate the mayor’s behavior, but Curlee says the media as a whole “didn’t try, or try hard enough” and that San Diego journalists “should be a little ashamed of that,” noting that he is.

Why you should read it: How often does a journalist say he f–ked up? That in itself is a good reason to hear him out. According to Curlee, Filner had been a subject of speculation among San Diego journalists, and he offers insight into why those stories were never pursued.

Prepared for battle — Religious scholar and author Reza Aslan’s interview Friday with Fox News’ Lauren Green has spread around the Internet like Chicken Pox before there was a vaccine, starting with it being posted by BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski, and labeled as one of the most embarrassing interviews to appear on the network. Green tore into Aslan asking how, as a Muslim, he can write a book about Jesus Christ. But Slate’s Josh Voorhees argues that Aslan knew what he was doing coming into the interview. In battling Green and establishing credibility for himself by listing off his college degrees, Voorhees says that Aslan “highlighted the gaping hole in Green’s line of questioning.” The interview worked out well for Aslan. After the interview, Zealot was at the top of the Amazon and Barnes & Noble best-seller lists.

Why you should read it: Voorhees offers–something different–a look from Aslan’s side.

Who would star in the Weiner movie? — Movies are often made based on significant events throughout history. And sometimes, films are ripped from the headlines. After Edward Snowden leaked secret NSA documents, for instance, it didn’t take long for a short film called Verax (named after Snowden’s codename) to appear on YouTube. So with Anthony Weiner’s sequel of political career and sex scandals, it seems like a perfect time to make a film about the former congressman who can’t seem to stop himself from sexting women other than his wife. HuffPost’s Ross Luippold agrees and listed his picks for who should star in the movie when the story “inevitably turns into a $100 million cinematic experience.” Luippold got the ball rolling with a fitting choice for who would play Weiner’s sex-crazed alter-ego Carlos Danger: Antonio Banderas in 2002. This may be difficult considering that the 2002 version of Banderas hasn’t been seen in 11 years, but we’ll let him have it. After this pick, however, Luippold seemed to literally pull his ideas out of his pop culture ass. Some picks include Butt-Head playing Weiner, Angelina Jolie playing Huma Abedin, Vanessa Hudgens playing Sydney Leather, Christopher Meloni playing Eliot Spitzer and Rick Scott playing Weiner’s penis. Yeah, Luppold really included that last one.

Why you should read it: The idea of an Anthony Weiner movie is great, and though the cast that Luippold picks is pretty dull, it can get you thinking of your own list.

Some advice for expectant mothers — Do you have a baby on the way? If you do, keep reading, if you don’t, you might as well keep reading anyway because Roll Call’s Rebecca Gale offered some advice on her “Hill Navigator” blog for soon-to-be mothers. The words of wisdom mostly concern paid and unpaid leave and the FMLA (Family and Medical Leave Act). Answering a list of questions, Gale says time off varies greatly from office to office, so the best thing you can do is talk to yours and see which options are available. Do this early so you’re not learning at the last minute that you have no paid leave and won’t be guaranteed a job after taking time off for your new bundle of joy. Gale also mentions FBDC in her last question on the list, which she admittedly made up. The question asks, “What is this about Hill Navigator going on Maternity Leave? Is that just FishbowlDC talking?” Gale makes clear that no, it’s not just FBDC talking (if we report something, it’s true) and that she is in fact expecting a baby. And yes, she’s taken her own advice about planning for maternity leave.

Why you should read it: It’s a good device for expectant couples. I also may have included it because FBDC gets a shout-out and wanted to pay a visit to the Dept. of Bragiculture, which I may pay for later.

Bob Schieffer is a grumpy old man —”Face The Nation” host Bob Schieffer doesn’t like Anthony Weiner, and he went on a long-winded rant Sunday about the NYC mayoral candidate to prove it. But TNR’s Isaac Chotiner wrote a piece in which he argues that Schieffer, and mainstream media personalities in general, shouldn’t be “allowed to get on their high horses” about certain things and not others. Schieffer, who apparently is “over 140-years-old,” ranted about how, “someone with Anthony Weiner’s problems has no business there and should leave the race.” Scheiffer had a similar tirade after the Bill Clinton scandal involving Monica Lewinsky, in which he said, “Coming from Texas, I have a natural tendency to be for politicians not from the northeast.” Chotiner argues that “a politician’s sex life and his governing abilities is non-existent.”

Why you should read it: Chotiner essentially calls Schieffer a grumpy old man who doesn’t understand sexting. How many chances will you get to read a story that says that?

Controlling information in the age of Reddit and Twitter — Reddit has become a dominating traffic-gobbler on the web, calling itself “the front page of the Internet.” It has millions of users that constantly post content, some of which goes viral. NYT’s Jay Caspian Kang examines what happens when false information is spread on the site, especially when it spills into the media. Within minutes of the FBI posting photos of Suspect #1 and Suspect #2 of the Boston Marathon Bombings, a Reddit user posted a photo of Suspect #2 beside a photo of Sunil Tripathi, starting a viral rumor that Tripathi was the suspect. This spread through Twitter and eventually made it to the Twitter accounts of journalists, such as BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski and Luke Russert of NBC News. The only problem was that Tripathi, a 22-year-old student at Brown, had been missing. His family had set up a Facebook page with the name “Help Us Find Sunil Tripathi,” but took it down after receiving threatening and hurtful messages from Internet users in connection with the Suspect #2 photo, all but abandoning their search. Kang uses this case to show how Internet communities like Twitter and Reddit have caused information to run wild on the web. The problem is, not all of it is true.

Why you should read it: Kang, in a compelling and well-written article, examines modern reporting practices and citizen journalism through the Internet and how false information affects innocent people. The article dives deep into how groups like Anonymous are contributing to this whirlpool of fact and rumor.

Anthony Weiner is no Bill Clinton — Anthony Weiner was involved in a sex scandal (well, actually the count’s at three right now, but that’s beside the point) and his loyal wife stood by him and supported him and his career. Bill Clinton was also involved in a sex scandal (also more than one, but the Monica Lewinsky scandal is obviously the one we’re referencing) and his wife also stood by his side as he faced impeachment. But The Daily Beast’s Michael Tomasky argues that this is about the only thing Weiner and Clinton have in common. He writes that anyone comparing the couples doesn’t have a full understanding of what happened in the Clinton sex scandal, and promptly explains what did happen. Clinton was a president, not a disgraced congressman running for mayor. Tomasky lists accomplishments that made Democrats love him and Republicans come to despise him. The GOP was so set on stopping him. The couple came under attack by the GOP, and together they fought back. Weiner, however, is not some target of some conspiracy. Rather he’s got a strange appetite for phone sex and sexting, in which dirty rants on healthcare are the norm, not to mention promising his online girlfriend a job at Politico. Tomasky says Huma has no reason to stay with him, other than publicity and political power. Another difference between Weiner and Clinton: Weiner has been embroiled in a number of sex scandals, but so far hasn’t sealed the deal.

Why you should read it: Tomasky takes Huma from being a victim to questioning her reasons for staying with Weiner, even calling her a “co-conspirator” since she allegedly knew about the most recent scandal before Weiner announced his mayoral bid. It makes for a rather interesting perspective in the widely-reported story of Weiner and his sex scandals.

See our last pick…

Read more

Press conferences are not couples therapy — Anthony Weiner (a.k.a. Carlos Danger’s) presser yesterday dropped a bombshell and released a mushroom cloud of cable news commentary. But Laura Bennett of TNR argues that sex scandal press conferences are being treated like couples therapy, and they shouldn’t be. As Bennet points out, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell enlisted the help of a sex therapist last night for a segment on “standing by your man,” and Rachel Maddow was chastising Weiner’s “redemption tour” and his “online, no-pants exchanges.” On Fox, Donald Trump diagnosed Weiner as “a sick guy.” A common theme among all cable coverage of sex scandals, Bennett writes, has become close analysis of the body language, rhetoric and chemistry of the politician and “the good wife.” In the past, the disgraced politician’s wife’s silence and solemn looks left the door wide open to this type of interpretation. But at yesterday’s press conference, Huma (known by her first name in Washington, as CNN’s Dana Bush noted) took the podium herself, seemingly leaving little room for interpretation of her feelings. But that didn’t stop the media from giving the replay of the presser a close analysis.

Why you should read it: The sex scandal press conference has become almost like a championship sports game, complete with post-game analysis. But Bennet offers insight that this type of analysis shouldn’t continue with the next sex scandal, which is sure to be just around the corner.

Where do speeches come from? — As President Obama gave his speech on economic policy today, there is little evidence of the multiple drafts, copious notes and many discussions that went into writing it. Yahoo! News’ Oliver Knox sat down with head speechwriter Cody Keenan for an inside look at how the speech went from an idea in early June to Obama delivering the speech at Knox College. Beginning with a half-hour meeting on June 14, in which Knox took detailed notes of “unfiltered POTUS,” Keenan assembled a 20-page outline that turned into the first draft. Working long hours with many people, Obama included, the speech became “tidier and tidier” until it was ready to go. Keenan mostly goes under the president’s direction, but occasionally argues against a presidential edit, though it’s rare. His office is full of political memorabilia, but Keenan’s favorite item is a signed football from 1985 Super Bowl champion Chicago Bears. Knox closes the piece with a sharp left turn, quoting Keenan saying that “Mike Ditka [who coached the team] could have prevented Barack Obama from becoming president, because he almost ran against him in ’04, in Illinois.” Hmmm… Ditka 2016, anyone?

Why you should read it: Knox provides a fairly detailed account of a speech’s journey from idea to delivery. Keenan also works ungodly hours in a basement office, so it may also help you feel better about your work schedule.

Read more

We’ve read a bunch of opinion pieces on Nate Silver this week, mostly so you don’t have to—because we know how much some of you hate him. The highlights:

You’re Fired!

NYT‘s Public Editor, Margaret Sullivan, wrote in a recent column that after praising Nate Silver, she was contacted by three “high-profile” political reporters at the paper “criticizing him and his work. They were also tough on me for seeming to endorse what he wrote, since I was suggesting that it get more visibility.” She thinks this is because Silver’s style of data-based journalism threatened the more… traditional way they covered politics. In other words, he made them feel irrelevant and they lashed out at Sullivan. Mother Jones’ Kevin Drum thinks this is a firing offense. “Even for those of us who are pretty cynical about political reporting, this is astonishing. If I were editor of the Times, I’d do whatever it took to find out who those three are, and then fire them instantly,” he says. Let’s see… fire a reporter who reacts badly out of an inflated sense of self-importance and ego. If that’s the standard, journalism could be in more trouble than we thought.

The Guy Who Doesn’t Get It, But Thinks He Does

David Hill‘s columns at The Hill are normally confounding, and this week’s on Silver is no exception. He spends a lot of time explaining how Silver will fail in his switch to ESPN for reason’s he can’t quite articulate, other than that “(l)ots of Web clicks, even millions of clicks, for a few months every four years does not qualify as mass media by most standards.” Really? Let’s be clear—Hill has absolutely no idea what Silver’s traffic at the Times is, or when. He’s speculating, and poorly. Scratch that, he’s just making stuff up to prove a point that seems to elude even him, facts or truth be damned. He says there isn’t enough interest out there for Silver to make it beyond his “15 minutes of fame at The New York Times,” (is Hill’s watch that slow?) and then tells us how he had the idea to exactly what Silver does “probably before Silver was born.” The kicker is Hill doesn’t seem to actually totally understand what Silver does—it’s statistics and probabilities and data modeling and that’s… science. So why would Hill, a Republican, take time to understand it? To top it off, this column follows one a few weeks back in which he calls big-data a “craze”  that threatens polling standards and then excoriates the Obama campaign for perceived ethical lapses in microtargeting voters. Nevermind Karl Rove pioneered microtargeting years earlier for Bush. Facts are not Hill’s strong point. Read more