Category: Ledes, Questionable

Time magazine has a nice scoop - that disgraced Californa Congressman Duke Cunningham wore a wire for the feds just before copping his plea. Yes, yes very good, writer Timothy J. Burger but couldn't you come up with a better lede than this groaner? Behold:

Washington's power players have always bragged about being well-wired, but for disgraced former congressman Duke Cunningham, "wired" wasn't just a figure of speech.

Disgraced Congressman 'Wore a Wire' [Time]

Yesterday, NYT Public Editor Barney Calame weighed in on the Geraldo Rivera/Alessandra Stanley brouhaha. He thinks, strongly, that (a) it wasn't a nudge, (b) the NYT should issue a correction, (c) Bill Keller's reasoning for backing Stanley was totally bogus, and (d) a "nudge"' is a fact, and a Geraldo-nudge in a Stanley-column is a wrong fact.

Great. But did he have to be such a dick about it?

That's just one four-letter word. And apparently those are fine to sling at media colleagues from the pages of The Paper of Record.

Calame's lede: "ONE of the real tests of journalistic integrity is being fair to someone who might be best described by a four-letter word."

Whatever else could you mean, Barney? Several four-letter epithets spring to mind -- toad, shoe, smurf -- but I think we all know where you're going with this. And frankly, it is beneath you, and beneath the New York Times.

Bottom line: it is unseemly for the NYT to gratuitiously insult a colleague in the lede of a story. Especially when that story admits that said institution has clearly misrepresented, gratuitiously insulted and arguably defamed that colleague. Not cool.

Calame writes: "I find it disturbing that any Times editor would come so close to implying - almost in a tit-for-tat sense - that Mr. Rivera's bad behavior essentially entitles the paper to rely on assumptions and refuse to correct an unsupported fact." Yet Calame's headline "Even Geraldo Deserves a Fair Shake" totally gives that credence by implying that there is some question as to the shake Geraldo deserves just by nature of being Geraldo. See aforementioned reference to coolness, lack thereof.

We agree with you that Geraldo deserves an apology from the NYT -- but you might want to throw one in there, too.

Even Geraldo Deserves a Fair Shake [NYT]

"WHEN Amy Rueckl, a 24-year-old graduate student in San Diego, tells friends that she loves being "totally bald," she is not referring to her head."

I have never seen this Amy Rueckl, but now thanks to the NYT, I've got an inkling. Latricia Stone, 35, of Orlando, Florida? Thanks for the visual. And seriously? Nothing on God's Green Earth could make me cut and paste from the first paragraph on page 2.

The Revised Birthday Suit [NYT]

The L Magazine blog, "The Local" notes an evocative lede in the NYT's Thursday Styles:

"WHAT does Alan Cumming smell like? Hmm. A manly, tasty blend of black pepper and bergamot with just a hint of Scotch pine, whiskey and - could it be? - rubber."

Robert Novak's column in the Chicago Sun-Times from Monday begins with this revealing lede:

"It was not merely a leak from the normally leak-proof Bush White House."

Maybe one day, but not by Novak, at least not in this article. Here he's writing about Alberto Gonzales as a possible Supreme Court nominee. But boy that lede sure seemed appropriate, given recent circumstances.

("What recent circumstances?" asks Novak. "I haven't discussed, written about, acknowledged or otherwise gone remotely on the record about anything recently circumstantial. But sure, I'd be happy to answer any questions you have by referring you to a certain eight pages in a certain recent judicial decision...")

...to have had Tom Friedman excise the word "Cheney" from his lede in today's Op-Ed. I don't think I am alone in that. [NYT]

MarketWatch Media editor Jon Friedman profiles Washington Post media maven Howard Kurtz today in a lively and interesting piece but its lede is reeeeeeeeaaaaaally reaching:

When Washington Post media writer Howard Kurtz got married two years ago, he could have strolled down the aisle to the tune of 10cc's aptly titled "The Things We Do for Love."

As much as Kurtz loved his bride Sheri, however, the song's title would have also applied to his workaholic mentality.

Like walking in the rain and the snow, this lede has nowhere else to go, and I actually do feel like a part of me is dying. Yes, we're reaching too, but at least now you all know that we have random 70's lyrics on the tip of our tongue at all times.

The article lauds Kurtz for his honesty, trustworthiness and accomplishments, has a few suggestions for how to improve "Reliable Sources" (thanks, Jon!), and includes an adorable photo of a smiley Kurtz (oy, what a punum!). In the meantime, we've got Steve Perry in our heads so we're feeling kind of angsty, but happy.

Sing along to "Oh, Sherry" here and if you want to do something illegal which we wouldn't recommend try to download it without totally getting a virus here. You have no idea how happy it will make us if we hear that in offices around New York people were suddenly absentmindedly humming "Oh, Sherry" so if you catch someone doing it, email us! (see box to the right)

Hendrik Hertzberg's "Talk of the Town" piece in this week's New Yorker leads with a lede about lede-burying, but may have left his own lede to languish lamely (sorry). In his commentary on the Matt Cooper/Judith Miller case, currently under consideration for appeal by the U.S. Supreme Court, he comments on political columnist Robert Novak, who was the first to out Valerie Plame:

It was Novak who outed the agent, but it is not Novak who is in trouble. Was he subpoenaed? If not, why not? If he was, and he refused to name his source, why isn't he in the same jail-bound boat as they are? If he did name names, why the relentless pursuit of Cooper and Miller? No one knows -- except Novak and the prosecutors.

It's the great mystery of the case, that and the eight blank pages of the appeal court decision. As 'Explainer' Daniel Engber said earlier this year on Slate:

Since he wrote the column outing Plame, he should have been the first witness on special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's list. Indeed, it's possible that he was. Since grand jury investigations are secret, it's not clear whether Novak has already testified in front of the grand jury, has refused to testify, or has not been asked to testify at all. Neither he nor Fitzgerald will comment on the case.

So, Novak might have sung like a canary... But it's hard to imagine that Novak's testimony wouldn't have leaked out into the press. It's well-known, for example, that Tim Russert has testified, and that Matthew Cooper has already appeared before the jury. And if Novak had given up his sources, why would the prosecutor still be pursuing Miller and Cooper?

It's very unlikely that Novak would be charged with a crime, since all he did was report what others had knowingly told him....But if Novak refused to testify, he should be in the same boat as Miller and Cooper.

But he's not. Yet Matt and Judy are slammer-bound and this guy is totally out of the limelight. So here's the question: if public policy reasons protect Novak and Fitzgerald (secrecy of Grand Jury proceedings encourages information) then shouldn't public policy reasons force the disclosure of Novak's testimony (prevention the unjust deprivation of liberty on the part of defendents). Cooper thinks it would be "helpful" to know what Novak revealed, if only to establish how great the need for his own testimony is (but why does Novak get to demur and not Cooper/Miller)?

These questions exist, and the answers do too, somewhere. Hopefully Matt and Judy will get them one of these days.

THE MATT AND JUDY SHOW [New Yorker]
RELATED: What about Bob? [Slate]

The New York Times gives new meaning to the phrase "casual violence:" (from Radosh.net)

Newscasters and writers often introduce regular segments with the phrase, "In sports today..." or "On Wall Street today..." The effect is usually comforting, because no matter what else is going on in the news, there is always sports, stock market trading, or what have you...I mention this because the New York Times'
Iraq round-up story today introduces a series of paragraphs with the phrase, "In violence today..."