My number one news gripe

In the past year and a half working in local news in Seattle, I've seen at least a half-dozen stories that unironically used the phrase "pay it forward." Yes, exactly like in that mediocre movie you neglected to see.

This is not an isolated problem, it's a citywide epidemic. Take the story late last year of the alleged phenomenon at Starbucks in which each customer would pay for the next one's order after being pestered to do so by the barrista. Even though this was an obvious guerrilla marketing scheme -- it happened at Starbucks locations across the country, and only Starbucks locations, largely within the same week -- it got all sorts of earnest local coverage.

Think I'm exaggerating? Here's video from KOMO-4, complete with 'Pay It Forward' graphic. Here we have Seattle market leader KING-5. Rounding out the big three, an article from KIRO-7. Google it yourself and you'll probably be able to find a TV station or newspaper from your town, talking about a Starbucks in your region. I don't mind that none of these journalists realized they were being duped, but when everybody references the same crap movie, that's just lazy. (Yes, I'm aware that Haley Joel Osment did not invent the phrase. But let's admit the fact that he owns it.)

The madness doesn't end there. This summer the Associated Press referred to a cancer patient as having a "bucket list". See the pattern?

Here are some more movie titles that I challenge local news to work into the lexicon:
K-Pax
Sweet November
Mad Money
I Am Sam
Rocky V

Slate's worst feature ever

When Slate unveiled its "Miers-o-Meter" three days ago, I knew it needed to be recalibrated -- it gave Miers a 75% chance of becoming a Supreme Court justice, even though by then her only supporter was pretty much Bush.

The next day she dropped 5%, then another 10 points to 60 the following day, and of course today she dropped to a final score of zero.

Come on, Slate. Yesterday, out of 100 possible universes, Harriet Miers became a Supreme in 60 of them? (Including the one where killer bees have taken over the Americas.) Any jerk could see she wasn't going to be confirmed.

My theory: Slate thought she'd last at least another week, and needed a high starting point from which to gradually drop her score. She probably really had an 8% chance this whole time! That's what I would have given her anyway. I don't know, 8 just feels right.

Where's liberal bias when we really need it?

I saw John Stewart on Nightline complaining about how the press is giving equal gravity to both John Kerry's supporters and the Lying Swift Boat Vets, apparently out of objectivity. Bob Nightline made an analogy that, if George W. Bush accused Bob Nightline of being a pedophile, even though it isn't true it would be newsworthy (which surely begs the question, "But wouldn't it also be newsworthy that Bush was making those accusations without any evidence, and that Bob Nightline is surely not a pedophile?).

In any case, there's a link-heavy segment at the end of Slate's Today's Papers that I think more people should see, so I'm reproducing it here.

The papers' stories on Kerry's charges of distortions seem to be missing one thing: the truth. There are plenty of examples this morning. Take the effort by the Post's Lois Romano and Howard Kurtz. The story begins, "John F. Kerry came out swinging Thursday night, denouncing the Republican convention for its 'anger and distortion' ...." The article goes on to quote Kerry, the Bush team, and then ponders the meaning of it all ... and somehow skips any facts to help readers evaluate if the "distortion" charge is accurate. (It is.)

Reporters often assess the veracity of leaders' statements ... when it's the leaders of foreign countries. Is there some mutated notion of objectivity stopping them from doing the same here? Or as one media reporter put it yesterday, "Isn't it part of the journalistic mission to provide a reality check?"