Meg Ryan - World-of-Newave.info http://answers.world-of-newave.info/meg-ryan.htm Latest news and articles about Meg Ryan en-us Copyright (c)2004-2008. All rights reserved. webmaster@world-of-newave.com (Webmaster) Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:44:24 GMT Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:44:24 GMT Newave Lisa XML Engine v1.0 - http://www.world-of-newave.info/about.htm 60 http://www.world-of-newave.info/images/wi8831.gif World-of-Newave.info - Knowledge and Informational Database http://www.world-of-newave.info/ 88 31 {NORTH AMERICA > RENTALS} - 3 Month Sublet in Queer Household Starting Jan. 1st (mission district) $715 http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/north-america/united-states/california/metro-areas/san-francisco-bay-area/business-and-economy/real-estate/rentals/3-month-sublet-in-queer-household-starting-jan-1st-20081152732.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/north-america/united-states/california/metro-areas/san-francisco-bay-area/business-and-economy/real-estate/rentals/3-month-sublet-in-queer-household-starting-jan-1st-20081152732.htm Sat, 29 Nov 2008 04:28:17 GMT I am going to New York for 3 months and need someone to live in my room until I get back. The room is medium sized with a bed, dresser, closet, and some other stuff. I will try and move a lot of my stuff out to make room for yours, but storage in our apartment is minimal. There are three other people living in the apartment. We like to clean but are not always meticulous cleaners. One of the roommates has a bird- it lives in the living room and often is let out of its cage. We are all queer and I feel it as a safe space for people of color. We are not high drama and often party outside of the homespace. Please send me an e-mail telling me about yourself. I prefer if you live in the area so that my roommates and I can meet you before you move in. Thanks! meg Sfbay.Craigslist.Org 3 Month Sublet in Queer Household Starting Jan. 1st (mission district) $715 {new window}   Sfbay.Craigslist.Org - I am going to New York for 3 months and need someone to live in my room until I get back. The room is medium sized with a bed, dresser, closet, and some other stuff. I will try and move a lot of my stuff out to make room for yours, but storage in our apartment is minimal. There are three other people living in the apartment. We like to clean but are not always meticulous cleaners. One of the roommates has a bird- it lives in the living room and often is let out of its cage. We are all queer and I feel it as a safe space for people of color. We are not high drama and often party outside of the homespace. Please send me an e-mail telling me about yourself. I prefer if you live in the area so that my roommates and I can meet you before you move in. Thanks! meg
3 Month Sublet in Queer Household Starting Jan. 1st {...}
Published: November 29, 2008, 4:28 am - Indexed: November 29, 2008, 9:57 am - Page Size: 5KB
Category: Regional > North America > United States > California > Metro Areas > San Francisco Bay Area > Business and Economy > Real Estate > Rentals

]]> Regional > North America > United States > California > Metro Areas > San Francisco Bay Area > Business and Economy > Real Estate > Rentals {NORTH AMERICA > REAL ESTATE} - Loft in Visual Artist's Working Sculpture Studio (oakland west) $650 290sqft http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/north-america/united-states/california/metro-areas/san-francisco-bay-area/business-and-economy/real-estate/loft-in-visual-artist-s-working-sculpture-studio-20081187625.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/north-america/united-states/california/metro-areas/san-francisco-bay-area/business-and-economy/real-estate/loft-in-visual-artist-s-working-sculpture-studio-20081187625.htm Thu, 27 Nov 2008 04:26:19 GMT Studio/office space to share in the historic Cotton Mill Studios. Great location off 880 near 23rd, minutes to Alameda and Fruitvale Bart. http://www.cottonmillstudios.com You will have the loft in a 1673 square foot studio. Ground floor used by an accomplished international sculpture & visual artist. Loft entry is through a spiral staircase, floor is wood, ~ 290 square feet. You can share the luxury kitchen and new bathroom on the ground floor. Utilities are included. 24 hour access. Fully Air-conditioned. 3 Meg Internet connection. Gated parking lot. Sharing downstairs artist studio workspace and conference space are an additional fee to be negotiated by day or week if interested. Sfbay.Craigslist.Org Loft in Visual Artist's Working Sculpture Studio (oakland west) $650 290sqft {new window}   Sfbay.Craigslist.Org - Studio/office space to share in the historic Cotton Mill Studios. Great location off 880 near 23rd, minutes to Alameda and Fruitvale Bart. http://www.cottonmillstudios.com You will have the loft in a 1673 square foot studio. Ground floor used by an accomplished international sculpture & visual artist. Loft entry is through a spiral staircase, floor is wood, ~ 290 square feet. You can share the luxury kitchen and new bathroom on the ground floor. Utilities are included. 24 hour access. Fully Air-conditioned. 3 Meg Internet connection. Gated parking lot. Sharing downstairs artist studio workspace and conference space are an additional fee to be negotiated by day or week if interested.
Loft in Visual Artist's Working Sculpture Studio {...}
Published: November 27, 2008, 4:26 am - Indexed: November 27, 2008, 10:44 am - Page Size: 4KB
Category: Regional > North America > United States > California > Metro Areas > San Francisco Bay Area > Business and Economy > Real Estate

]]> Regional > North America > United States > California > Metro Areas > San Francisco Bay Area > Business and Economy > Real Estate {ISSUES > BIAS AND BALANCE} - Boehlert: Covering new presidents: the media's double standard http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/boehlert-covering-new-presidents-the-media-s-double-20081182028.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/society/issues/business/media/bias-and-balance/boehlert-covering-new-presidents-the-media-s-double-20081182028.htm Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:50:30 GMT In anticipation of the new administration, Beltway media insiders are busy laying the groundwork for how reporters and pundits will treat the new team on Pennsylvania Avenue. "Once a president takes office ... an adversarial relationship usually flourishes, at least with beat reporters," wrote Howard Kurtz in The Washington Post. And former New York Times reporter Judith Miller, discussing the press corps on Fox News, agreed: "They are inevitably going to turn on him, as all -- this happened to every administration. I don't see why we should be surprised. It is the natural turn of events." The conventional wisdom is quite clear: The press always turns skeptical and becomes combative when new presidents come to town. Except, of course, when the press does not. In truth, the model being touted today by media insiders didn't apply to the previous two administrations. That model didn't apply to Bill Clinton in 1993 because the press wasn't simply skeptical about his administration, the press savaged it. And the model didn't apply to George W. Bush in 2001, because instead of turning combative toward him, the press rolled over for the Republican. In terms of how the press has treated the last two new presidents, there's the Democratic model (i.e. overly hostile), and the Republican model (overly docile). At the outset of the Bush presidency, when it became obvious that the press had adopted a softer standard for judging the new Republican president, author Jeffrey Toobin noted that "the high emotional temperature of the Clinton years left a lot of people, including journalists, kind of exhausted." He added, "I think it will probably take a while to sort of gin that back up again." Over the course of eight years of covering Bush, I'm not sure the press ever recaptured the fever it displayed during the Clinton years. So it would be deeply suspicious if, in 2009, the press managed to turn up that emotional temperature just in time to cover another Democratic administration. It would also be troubling for journalism if the press responded to conservative claims today that reporters had been too soft on the Democrat during the campaign by reacting the same way journalists did when those claims were lodged during the 1992 campaign: by trashing the victorious Democrat to prove the press corps wasn't "in the tank." That's what helped fuel the stark double standard in terms of early coverage of the past two administrations. One quick example: On January 31, 1993, 12 days after Clinton had been sworn into office, Sam Donaldson appeared on ABC and made this jarring announcement: "Last week, we could talk about, 'Is the honeymoon over?' This week, we can talk about, 'Is the presidency over?' " (At the time, Clinton's approval rating hovered around 65 percent.) By contrast, on February 10, 2001, three weeks after Bush had been sworn into office, The New York Times' Frank Bruni penned a gentle, honeymoon-mode review about how authentic and at ease Bush seemed with his new role. "George W. Bush is establishing a no-fuss, no-sweat, 'look-Ma-no-hands' presidency, his exertions ever measured, his outlook always mirthful," wrote Bruni. "The gilded robes of the presidency have not obscured Mr. Bush's innate goofiness -- or, for that matter, his insistent folksiness." Bruni's piece was a classic example of what in journalism is called a "beat-sweetener." It's where a reporter assigned to a new beat ingratiates himself with key sources by writing flattering profiles. There were precious few White House beat-sweeteners published in 1993. "Perhaps never in our nation's history -- certainly not in its recent history -- has a President so early in his term been subjected to a greater barrage of negative media coverage than Bill Clinton," wrote the Los Angeles Times' late media critic David Shaw in 1993. (The headline to Shaw's piece: "Not Even Getting a 1st Chance; Early Coverage of the President Seemed More Like An Autopsy.") "The level of hostility in the [White House] pressroom, I think, was extraordinary," Newsweek's Eleanor Clift told the Los Angeles Times in 1993. For example, days after the Waco siege between federal forces and Branch Davidians ended in a deadly fireball in April of that year, a USA Today poll showed 93 percent of Americans did not blame Clinton for the outcome. Clift said she thought to herself, "The other 7 percent are in the White House press room." And Washington Post editorial page editor Meg Greenfield conceded she'd never seen any administration "pronounced dead" so quickly by the press. The conventional wisdom today is that it was a cacophony of missteps made by the new Clinton-led Democratic team that generated the bad press in 1993. That reporters and pundits simply responded to the bungled attempt at transition. What's been erased from that equation, though, is the acknowledgement that with or without the miscues, the press had already adopted an entirely new, contentious, and often disrespectful way of treating an incoming president. What's also glossed over is the fact that eight years later, the press then radically adjusted its standards -- again -- for the new Republican president. For lots of people, recalling Clinton's chronic battles with the press likely conjures up impeachment flashbacks featuring a cavalcade of conservative pundits chattering incessantly about the rule of law. Or maybe the Clinton battles remind them of reading mind-numbing Whitewater updates, which, even after four years of hype, never seemed as dire or spectacular as the press made them out to be. If the past is prologue, it's important to remember two things as the new Democratic administration prepares to take up residence. First, the press in 1992 was tagged as being overly affectionate toward Clinton in the general election. By early 1993, there had been a sea change in how journalists treated the Democrat. And second, Clinton's bad press started years before impeachment and months before any kind of official scandal machinery was put in place inside the U.S. Capitol. The hostile and at times overbearing press coverage started during the transition period and before Clinton even had time to do much of anything wrong. "Judging by today's press conference, the traditional media honeymoon seems already on the wane," ABC News' Diane Sawyer announced on January 14, 1993, one week before Clinton was inaugurated. Yes, there were several embarrassing tactical mistakes made early on by the inexperienced new administration that sparked bad press, including the withdrawal of Zoë Baird as Clinton's nominee to be attorney general because she had employed undocumented immigrants as her nanny and driver. And Clinton created controversy when he tried to keep his campaign promise to allow gays to serve openly in the military, an initiative the administration bungled, in part, by not doing enough preparation with allies on Capitol Hill or the Pentagon before the initiative was unveiled. Looking back, though, the so-called scandals that the press claimed were derailing Clinton's entire presidency just days into his first term seem pretty tame. (The hullabaloo over Baird's domestic help seems positively quaint in retrospect.) At the time though, it was pure doomsday, according to the press. Here was an utterly typical dispatch from Clinton's first weeks in office, courtesy of Time [emphasis added]: No sooner had Clinton emerged from the embarrassing miscalculation about Zoe Baird than he found himself in an even stickier political quagmire. After promising in his Inaugural Address to end an era of "deadlock and drift," Clinton was suddenly at war with the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as members of his own party in Congress. Worse yet, the spectacle of Clinton clinging so resolutely to his gay-rights pledge after breaking broader promises on taxes, the deficit and spending projects raised questions about his judgment. Aside from the heavy-handed language, note how Time ridiculed Clinton for "clinging" to a long-forgotten campaign promise. The irony was that one of the key themes of the nasty coverage of Clinton's early presidency was that he was weak and excessively political (i.e. "Slick Willie"), that he gave in for political reasons, and that he refused to keep controversial campaign pledges. ("Clinton guaranteed himself a spate of bad press by backing off campaign promises," The Washington Post explained two weeks after his inauguration.) But when Clinton stood up on the campaign pledge regarding gays in the military, journalists not only were not impressed, they mocked him. (Perhaps they had different ideas about which of Clinton's campaign pledges were important and which ones were not.) "My colleagues and I, like journalistic Dr. Strangeloves, are ready to nuke Mr. Clinton at the slightest provocation," New York Times columnist Leslie Gelb conceded just one month after the Democrat became the 42nd president. The press pile-on simply gained momentum through the weeks and months. In the spring, the Washington Post Style section featured the headlined, "Another Failed Presidency, Already? Sure, It's Early. But What's That Sound of No Hands Clapping?" Around the same period, Time offered up this headline on its cover: "The Incredible Shrinking President." (Weeks earlier, the doomsday Time headline on newsstands around the country asked, "Anguish Over Bosnia: Will it be Clinton's Vietnam?") By the following year, The New York Times Magazine casually announced, "In mainstream journalism ... President Clinton is routinely depicted in the most unflattering terms: a liar, a fraud, a chronically indecisive man who cannot be trusted to stand for anything -- or with anyone." Today, the evidence suggests the over-the-top press coverage of early 1993 sprang from a conscious decision the press made to lock and load on the Democratic White House -- just as it appeared the press chose to pull back when Bush's first term played out in 2001, the way a blanket of calm suddenly descended over newsrooms that had spent the previous eight years in nonstop scandal-and-high-dudgeon mode. ("Good for Washington in giving a new president a break at the start," the hometown Washington Post cheered in the spring of 2001.) The press not only treated Bush with loving hands, but also dialed back its White House coverage, which meant Bush did not have to battle the media's constant glare. A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that 41 percent fewer news stories were produced about Bush between January 21, 2001, and March 21, 2001, than there were produced about Clinton during the same two-month period eight years earlier. Newsweek, in particular, practically unplugged its Bush White House coverage, publishing 59 percent fewer stories about the new Bush vs. the new Clinton. The news blackout came despite the fact that the newly elected President Bush came into office under the extraordinary circumstances of losing the popular vote and securing the office only after a divided Supreme Court ordered the vote-counting in Florida to cease. And yes, Bush aides were quite content in 2001 with the reduced coverage of the new president. The White House's Mary Matalin told The Washington Post in April 2001 that Clinton talked too much --"[he] would just get out there and talk about anything, any time, any place" -- and that Bush would be more "efficient" in the way he made news. What a coincidence. The White House wanted less coverage and scrutiny from the press in 2001 (when Bush often appeared unsure of himself in public settings), and the GOP White House got less coverage and scrutiny. The double standard in how the press treated the incoming Democratic and Republican presidents remains glaringly obvious today. For instance, in 1993, journalists complained that the new Clinton communications team limited their access (by closing off portions of the White House to reporters), that aides didn't sufficiently schmooze reporters, and that the new president did not have enough formal press conferences. Also, they complained that the Clinton team was trying to "bypass" the mainstream media by embracing other outlets, like conducting waves of satellite-feed interviews with local television stations. That's why the Fourth Estate piled on the Democrats with hypercritical coverage. Because their feelings were hurt and their egos were bruised. "They're dissing us," David Lauter, Los Angeles Times White House reporter, complained to author Tom Rosenstiel in April 1993. "A press corps that has been avoided and ignored and treated in a way that is Nixonian is not going to cut [the president] any breaks," announced George Condon of the Copley News Service in 1993, while serving as president of the White House Correspondents Association. His point was that the Clintons had some of bad press coming to them. Paul Richter, White House correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, agreed. He said the treatment of the media by a president and his staff "really does affect the coverage." Some journalists even admitted that that was the reason the press treated some relatively minor 1993 news stories, such as the firing of seven members of the White House travel office, with such ferocity. (A ferocity that, viewed from the distance of 15 years, seems absolutely perplexing.) The travel office is a nonpartisan department within the White House staffed by aides who help make life easier for reporters traveling with the president by arranging meals and communications. Journalists get to know the office staffers and rely on them to help make life on the road less bumpy. In May 1993, the White House fired all seven travel staffers for gross financial mismanagement and announced the FBI had been asked to investigate. As Shaw at the Los Angeles Times noted, when hearing about the clumsy travel-office firings, the press corps erupted in outrage. "At one briefing, they asked 169 questions about the travel office firings. Neither Bosnia nor the President's deficit-reduction package, both major news stories at the time, received a fraction of that attention that day" [emphasis added]. In the days following the firings, the travel-office story (aka Travelgate) landed on Page One of The Washington Post six times, and four times on A1 of The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Chicago Tribune. The press pitched the story as a blockbuster. In less than three weeks, the Post published nearly 20 news stories, editorials, and commentaries on the subject, even though its White House correspondents eventually conceded the firings were "relatively trivial." Newsweek summed up the media phenomenon at play with its Travelgate headline: "Don't Mess With the Media: The White House Press Corps Gets Its Revenge." Weeks later, when the media hyped the phony story that Clinton had held up traffic at Los Angeles International Airport while getting a $200 haircut as Air Force One idled on the tarmac, they enjoyed another round of payback. Suggesting the story revealed all sorts of deep character flaws embedded in Clinton (namely that he was a phony and a hypocrite), the press treated the haircut as an even bigger deal than Travelgate. The so-called scandal was mentioned 50 times by The Washington Post alone, including nine times in front-page stories. Six weeks later, though, when Newsday revealed that Federal Aviation Administration records showed no planes had been delayed while Clinton got a trim, virtually every news organization that initially hyped the story either downplayed (the Los Angeles Times) or completely ignored (The New York Times, ABC, CBS, NBC) the correction. The Post was so unresponsive to the facts that the paper's ombudsman had to devote an entire column to the matter, slapping reporters' hands for doing the absolute minimum to clear up any confusion about nonexistent flight delays caused by Clinton. And why the pile-on? Simple: The press was still angry with how their pals in the travel office had been treated. "There was a clear sense of retribution" in the media's haircut coverage, Newsweek's Mark Miller said at the time, because the media were "pissed off." Indeed, the resentment was growing, "whether it was conscious or subconscious," said John King, then working as White House correspondent for The Associated Press. "[S]o when people had a legitimate reason to kick [Clinton] as a buffoon, they went overboard." Try to recall, however, a single instance in early 2001 when the press went "overboard" and kicked Bush as a "buffoon" on the front pages for days on end regarding an essentially trivial process story. Cautious and respectful, the press did no such thing. "The truth is, this new president [Bush] has done things with relative impunity that would have been huge uproars if they had occurred under Clinton," The Washington Post's John Harris wrote in May 2001. Harris continued: Try to recall this major news story during Clinton's first 100 days: Under pressure from Western senators, the president capitulated on a minor part of his 1993 budget deal, grazing fees on ranchers using federal lands. A barrage of coverage had an unmistakable subtext: Clinton was weak and excessively political and caved to special interests. Bush has made numerous similar concessions on items far more central to the agenda he campaigned on, such as deemphasizing vouchers in his education plan and conceding that his tax cut will be some $350 billion smaller than he proposed. For the most part these repositionings are being cast as shrewd rather than servile. But if the press went easy on Bush in early 2001, if it looked the other way when he flip-flopped on campaign promises, that must have been thanks to the way the White House pampered reporters, right? Because journalists were quite open in 1993 about being offended by the White House's treatment and how being slighted, or "dissed," translated into tougher coverage. Recall that the press was angry about the way Democratic aides were uncommunicative and how few formal press conferences Clinton had held, and the way the Democrats were trying to go around the mainstream media. In truth, of course, if the Clinton team was guilty of slighting the press in 1993, the Bush team absolutely humiliated it. The Bush White House openly advertised its disdain for the press (former chief of staff Andrew Card famously dismissed the press as just another D.C. special interest group desperately seeking access), aides quickly formed habits of not returning reporters' calls, and Bush immediately canceled formal press briefings with reporters. And even the informal ones he held were rare in the first term. In fact, Bush held just 17 press conferences compared with Clinton's 44. (Despite the media's early grumbling, Clinton actually set a new mark for the most press conferences by any first-term president in the modern era.) Over time, it became clear to the entire country that the Bush White House did not respect the press, that it was dissing the press corps. The way the White House for years waved into press briefings a former $200-an-hour male escort with no journalism background and no serious press affiliation; the way the administration churned out misleading video news releases that crossed the legal line into "covert propaganda"; and the way the administration audaciously paid off pundits like Armstrong Williams to secretly hype White House initiatives. The media, though, didn't punish the Republican president with bad press. Contrary to the edicts laid down in the 1990s, the early Bush coverage was not affected by how the president and his staff slighted and controlled the press. Instead, the press sheepishly fell in line, nervous about having its already limited access even further restricted. The kowtowing was at times startling to watch. As Media Matters Senior Fellow Eric Alterman noted in 2003's What Liberal Media?: [T]he Bush team plays a kind of hardball that the Clintonians were never able to master. When Houston Chronicle reporter Bennett Roth asked press spokesman Ari Fleischer about underage drinking by the president's daughters, Fleischer informed him, Don Corleone-style, that his question had been "noted in the building." The implication was clear to all: More such unfriendly questions and Roth could be cut off, unable to do his job, and useless to his employers. The outcries of solidarity from Roth's colleagues in the press corps in the face of this public threat would not have disturbed the sleep of a napping newborn. There were other dynamics at play, as well. For instance, as the first Clinton term unfolded, there were open discussions among journalists about how they were anxious not to be tagged as being "in the tank" for Clinton. How they didn't want to be called out by The New Republic's running "Clinton Suck-Up Watch," which mocked journalists who the magazine saw as overly effusive in their praise of the new president. It was that professional anxiousness (i.e. that peer pressure) that led some to view the new Democratic administration through an unprecedented, hypercritical lens. It was also a phenomenon fueled by right-wing critics such as Rush Limbaugh who accused the press of having a liberal bias. Naturally, one way for the media to disprove that theory was to be especially hard on the new Democratic administration. "If you dared say anything complimentary [about Clinton] ... you were looked at like some sort of pathetic fool who was obviously in the tank," said Newsweek's Miller during Clinton's first year in office. At the time, observers suggested that get-tough approach toward Clinton simply reflected journalism's DNA. Brit Hume, then a White House correspondent for ABC News, insisted, "We live in a time when the worst thing that can be said about a journalist in Washington is that he or she is not 'tough.' " In 2001, however, very few journalists appeared concerned about being "in the tank" for Bush. In fact, the tank was quite crowded. It turns out, that urge among Beltway journalists to bend over backward for incoming Republican administrations goes back many years. Former Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee explained the phenomenon to Mark Hertsgaard in his book about the press, On Bended Knee: Stressing that it was "all totally subconscious," Bradlee explained that when Ronald Reagan came to Washington in 1980, journalists at the Post sensed that "here comes a really true conservative. ... And we are known -- though I don't think justifiably -- as the great liberals. So, [we thought] we've got to really behave ourselves here. We've got to not be arrogant, make every effort to be informed, be mannerly, be fair. And we did this. I suspect in the process that this paper and probably a good deal of the press gave Reagan not a free ride but they didn't use the same standards on him that they used on Carter and on Nixon." Just like with Reagan, the D.C. press corps went out of its way to behave itself with Bush, to be "fair" to the new conservative president. Looking ahead, that desire among journalists to be tough on Democrats in 2009 for fear of being tagged liberal or "in the tank" could certainly come into play when Obama is inaugurated. Because just as the press was derided by Republicans for going too easy on the Democratic baby boomer candidate in 1992 ("Liberal-Media Lynch Mob" buttons and T-shirts were seen at the GOP convention that year), reporters and pundits have been under constant attack in 2008 for going too soft on the Democratic baby boomer candidate. So, in order to "prove" their independence, will journalists unleash an assault on the new Democratic White House the way they did in 1993? And will the press pick seemingly random beefs to make its case against the Democratic president, the way it lashed out at Clinton for being overly interested and engrossed in the issues? And the way it said his transition team was too deliberative and close-mouthed when selecting the most senior members of his new administration? Believe it or not, in 1993, those were deemed to be serious strikes against Clinton. In terms of the latter, restless reporters resented how, during the transition period in late 1992, Democrats didn't dole out enough information about key appointments. "The transition ruined any good feeling that there might have been," Jeffrey Birnbaum, then a Wall Street Journal reporter, said in 1993. "The dark days of Little Rock after the election, I think, are what soured the press relations with the Clintons." The National Journal concurred in a report that year: The amity suffered, however, as the campaign continued -- as the crowd of reporters grew and Clinton's accessibility dwindled. It deteriorated more during the transition. Reporters ensconced in Little Rock, Ark., and in pursuit of a story each day focused on Clinton's leisurely pace in making appointments and on the campaign promises he'd forsaken. By Clinton's last press conference before moving north toward his new home, the tone of the questioning had grown nasty. Note that when Clinton's team didn't leak enough transition-team information, the press got mad and said that's when the relationship began to sour. But eight years later, when the Bush team didn't leak transition-team information in late 2000, the press praised the new White House for its discipline and message control, an obvious double standard. Meanwhile, one of the deepest ironies of examining the hostile/docile press models for the two previously inaugurated presidents is that one of the personal traits that the press relentlessly mocked in Clinton during his first months in office was his high intellectual metabolism, how he wanted to debate every subject and engage around the clock and hear all kinds of opinions about the day's most important topics. The press saw that as a very troubling sign because sometimes it forced Clinton to delay his final decisions. "This has led to a perception of weakness and indecisiveness," NBC's Andrea Mitchell announced at the time. (Bush's lack of intellectual curiosity eight years later did not seem to worry the press.) From the media's perspective, Clinton was too engaged in the pressing topics of the day. Let's hope the press doesn't foolishly hold that against the next hands-on, issues-oriented president. Mediamatters.Org Boehlert: Covering new presidents: the media's double standard {new window}   Mediamatters.Org - In anticipation of the new administration, Beltway media insiders are busy laying the groundwork for how reporters and pundits will treat the new team on Pennsylvania Avenue. "Once a president takes office ... an adversarial relationship usually flourishes, at least with beat reporters," wrote Howard Kurtz in The Washington Post. And former New York Times reporter Judith Miller, discussing the press corps on Fox News, agreed: "They are inevitably going to turn on him, as all -- this happened to every administration. I don't see why we should be surprised. It is the natural turn of events." The conventional wisdom is quite clear: The press always turns skeptical and becomes combative when new presidents come to town. Except, of course, when the press does not. In truth, the model being touted today by media insiders didn't apply to the previous two administrations. That model didn't apply to Bill Clinton in 1993 because the press wasn't simply skeptical about his administration, the press savaged it. And the model didn't apply to George W. Bush in 2001, because instead of turning combative toward him, the press rolled over for the Republican. In terms of how the press has treated the last two new presidents, there's the Democratic model (i.e. overly hostile), and the Republican model (overly docile). At the outset of the Bush presidency, when it became obvious that the press had adopted a softer standard for judging the new Republican president, author Jeffrey Toobin noted that "the high emotional temperature of the Clinton years left a lot of people, including journalists, kind of exhausted." He added, "I think it will probably take a while to sort of gin that back up again." Over the course of eight years of covering Bush, I'm not sure the press ever recaptured the fever it displayed during the Clinton years. So it would be deeply suspicious if, in 2009, the press managed to turn up that emotional temperature just in time to cover another Democratic administration. It would also be troubling for journalism if the press responded to conservative claims today that reporters had been too soft on the Democrat during the campaign by reacting the same way journalists did when those claims were lodged during the 1992 campaign: by trashing the victorious Democrat to prove the press corps wasn't "in the tank." That's what helped fuel the stark double standard in terms of early coverage of the past two administrations. One quick example: On January 31, 1993, 12 days after Clinton had been sworn into office, Sam Donaldson appeared on ABC and made this jarring announcement: "Last week, we could talk about, 'Is the honeymoon over?' This week, we can talk about, 'Is the presidency over?' " (At the time, Clinton's approval rating hovered around 65 percent.) By contrast, on February 10, 2001, three weeks after Bush had been sworn into office, The New York Times' Frank Bruni penned a gentle, honeymoon-mode review about how authentic and at ease Bush seemed with his new role. "George W. Bush is establishing a no-fuss, no-sweat, 'look-Ma-no-hands' presidency, his exertions ever measured, his outlook always mirthful," wrote Bruni. "The gilded robes of the presidency have not obscured Mr. Bush's innate goofiness -- or, for that matter, his insistent folksiness." Bruni's piece was a classic example of what in journalism is called a "beat-sweetener." It's where a reporter assigned to a new beat ingratiates himself with key sources by writing flattering profiles. There were precious few White House beat-sweeteners published in 1993. "Perhaps never in our nation's history -- certainly not in its recent history -- has a President so early in his term been subjected to a greater barrage of negative media coverage than Bill Clinton," wrote the Los Angeles Times' late media critic David Shaw in 1993. (The headline to Shaw's piece: "Not Even Getting a 1st Chance; Early Coverage of the President Seemed More Like An Autopsy.") "The level of hostility in the [White House] pressroom, I think, was extraordinary," Newsweek's Eleanor Clift told the Los Angeles Times in 1993. For example, days after the Waco siege between federal forces and Branch Davidians ended in a deadly fireball in April of that year, a USA Today poll showed 93 percent of Americans did not blame Clinton for the outcome. Clift said she thought to herself, "The other 7 percent are in the White House press room." And Washington Post editorial page editor Meg Greenfield conceded she'd never seen any administration "pronounced dead" so quickly by the press. The conventional wisdom today is that it was a cacophony of missteps made by the new Clinton-led Democratic team that generated the bad press in 1993. That reporters and pundits simply responded to the bungled attempt at transition. What's been erased from that equation, though, is the acknowledgement that with or without the miscues, the press had already adopted an entirely new, contentious, and often disrespectful way of treating an incoming president. What's also glossed over is the fact that eight years later, the press then radically adjusted its standards -- again -- for the new Republican president. For lots of people, recalling Clinton's chronic battles with the press likely conjures up impeachment flashbacks featuring a cavalcade of conservative pundits chattering incessantly about the rule of law. Or maybe the Clinton battles remind them of reading mind-numbing Whitewater updates, which, even after four years of hype, never seemed as dire or spectacular as the press made them out to be. If the past is prologue, it's important to remember two things as the new Democratic administration prepares to take up residence. First, the press in 1992 was tagged as being overly affectionate toward Clinton in the general election. By early 1993, there had been a sea change in how journalists treated the Democrat. And second, Clinton's bad press started years before impeachment and months before any kind of official scandal machinery was put in place inside the U.S. Capitol. The hostile and at times overbearing press coverage started during the transition period and before Clinton even had time to do much of anything wrong. "Judging by today's press conference, the traditional media honeymoon seems already on the wane," ABC News' Diane Sawyer announced on January 14, 1993, one week before Clinton was inaugurated. Yes, there were several embarrassing tactical mistakes made early on by the inexperienced new administration that sparked bad press, including the withdrawal of Zoë Baird as Clinton's nominee to be attorney general because she had employed undocumented immigrants as her nanny and driver. And Clinton created controversy when he tried to keep his campaign promise to allow gays to serve openly in the military, an initiative the administration bungled, in part, by not doing enough preparation with allies on Capitol Hill or the Pentagon before the initiative was unveiled. Looking back, though, the so-called scandals that the press claimed were derailing Clinton's entire presidency just days into his first term seem pretty tame. (The hullabaloo over Baird's domestic help seems positively quaint in retrospect.) At the time though, it was pure doomsday, according to the press. Here was an utterly typical dispatch from Clinton's first weeks in office, courtesy of Time [emphasis added]: No sooner had Clinton emerged from the embarrassing miscalculation about Zoe Baird than he found himself in an even stickier political quagmire. After promising in his Inaugural Address to end an era of "deadlock and drift," Clinton was suddenly at war with the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as members of his own party in Congress. Worse yet, the spectacle of Clinton clinging so resolutely to his gay-rights pledge after breaking broader promises on taxes, the deficit and spending projects raised questions about his judgment. Aside from the heavy-handed language, note how Time ridiculed Clinton for "clinging" to a long-forgotten campaign promise. The irony was that one of the key themes of the nasty coverage of Clinton's early presidency was that he was weak and excessively political (i.e. "Slick Willie"), that he gave in for political reasons, and that he refused to keep controversial campaign pledges. ("Clinton guaranteed himself a spate of bad press by backing off campaign promises," The Washington Post explained two weeks after his inauguration.) But when Clinton stood up on the campaign pledge regarding gays in the military, journalists not only were not impressed, they mocked him. (Perhaps they had different ideas about which of Clinton's campaign pledges were important and which ones were not.) "My colleagues and I, like journalistic Dr. Strangeloves, are ready to nuke Mr. Clinton at the slightest provocation," New York Times columnist Leslie Gelb conceded just one month after the Democrat became the 42nd president. The press pile-on simply gained momentum through the weeks and months. In the spring, the Washington Post Style section featured the headlined, "Another Failed Presidency, Already? Sure, It's Early. But What's That Sound of No Hands Clapping?" Around the same period, Time offered up this headline on its cover: "The Incredible Shrinking President." (Weeks earlier, the doomsday Time headline on newsstands around the country asked, "Anguish Over Bosnia: Will it be Clinton's Vietnam?") By the following year, The New York Times Magazine casually announced, "In mainstream journalism ... President Clinton is routinely depicted in the most unflattering terms: a liar, a fraud, a chronically indecisive man who cannot be trusted to stand for anything -- or with anyone." Today, the evidence suggests the over-the-top press coverage of early 1993 sprang from a conscious decision the press made to lock and load on the Democratic White House -- just as it appeared the press chose to pull back when Bush's first term played out in 2001, the way a blanket of calm suddenly descended over newsrooms that had spent the previous eight years in nonstop scandal-and-high-dudgeon mode. ("Good for Washington in giving a new president a break at the start," the hometown Washington Post cheered in the spring of 2001.) The press not only treated Bush with loving hands, but also dialed back its White House coverage, which meant Bush did not have to battle the media's constant glare. A study by the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that 41 percent fewer news stories were produced about Bush between January 21, 2001, and March 21, 2001, than there were produced about Clinton during the same two-month period eight years earlier. Newsweek, in particular, practically unplugged its Bush White House coverage, publishing 59 percent fewer stories about the new Bush vs. the new Clinton. The news blackout came despite the fact that the newly elected President Bush came into office under the extraordinary circumstances of losing the popular vote and securing the office only after a divided Supreme Court ordered the vote-counting in Florida to cease. And yes, Bush aides were quite content in 2001 with the reduced coverage of the new president. The White House's Mary Matalin told The Washington Post in April 2001 that Clinton talked too much --"[he] would just get out there and talk about anything, any time, any place" -- and that Bush would be more "efficient" in the way he made news. What a coincidence. The White House wanted less coverage and scrutiny from the press in 2001 (when Bush often appeared unsure of himself in public settings), and the GOP White House got less coverage and scrutiny. The double standard in how the press treated the incoming Democratic and Republican presidents remains glaringly obvious today. For instance, in 1993, journalists complained that the new Clinton communications team limited their access (by closing off portions of the White House to reporters), that aides didn't sufficiently schmooze reporters, and that the new president did not have enough formal press conferences. Also, they complained that the Clinton team was trying to "bypass" the mainstream media by embracing other outlets, like conducting waves of satellite-feed interviews with local television stations. That's why the Fourth Estate piled on the Democrats with hypercritical coverage. Because their feelings were hurt and their egos were bruised. "They're dissing us," David Lauter, Los Angeles Times White House reporter, complained to author Tom Rosenstiel in April 1993. "A press corps that has been avoided and ignored and treated in a way that is Nixonian is not going to cut [the president] any breaks," announced George Condon of the Copley News Service in 1993, while serving as president of the White House Correspondents Association. His point was that the Clintons had some of bad press coming to them. Paul Richter, White House correspondent for the Los Angeles Times, agreed. He said the treatment of the media by a president and his staff "really does affect the coverage." Some journalists even admitted that that was the reason the press treated some relatively minor 1993 news stories, such as the firing of seven members of the White House travel office, with such ferocity. (A ferocity that, viewed from the distance of 15 years, seems absolutely perplexing.) The travel office is a nonpartisan department within the White House staffed by aides who help make life easier for reporters traveling with the president by arranging meals and communications. Journalists get to know the office staffers and rely on them to help make life on the road less bumpy. In May 1993, the White House fired all seven travel staffers for gross financial mismanagement and announced the FBI had been asked to investigate. As Shaw at the Los Angeles Times noted, when hearing about the clumsy travel-office firings, the press corps erupted in outrage. "At one briefing, they asked 169 questions about the travel office firings. Neither Bosnia nor the President's deficit-reduction package, both major news stories at the time, received a fraction of that attention that day" [emphasis added]. In the days following the firings, the travel-office story (aka Travelgate) landed on Page One of The Washington Post six times, and four times on A1 of The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Chicago Tribune. The press pitched the story as a blockbuster. In less than three weeks, the Post published nearly 20 news stories, editorials, and commentaries on the subject, even though its White House correspondents eventually conceded the firings were "relatively trivial." Newsweek summed up the media phenomenon at play with its Travelgate headline: "Don't Mess With the Media: The White House Press Corps Gets Its Revenge." Weeks later, when the media hyped the phony story that Clinton had held up traffic at Los Angeles International Airport while getting a $200 haircut as Air Force One idled on the tarmac, they enjoyed another round of payback. Suggesting the story revealed all sorts of deep character flaws embedded in Clinton (namely that he was a phony and a hypocrite), the press treated the haircut as an even bigger deal than Travelgate. The so-called scandal was mentioned 50 times by The Washington Post alone, including nine times in front-page stories. Six weeks later, though, when Newsday revealed that Federal Aviation Administration records showed no planes had been delayed while Clinton got a trim, virtually every news organization that initially hyped the story either downplayed (the Los Angeles Times) or completely ignored (The New York Times, ABC, CBS, NBC) the correction. The Post was so unresponsive to the facts that the paper's ombudsman had to devote an entire column to the matter, slapping reporters' hands for doing the absolute minimum to clear up any confusion about nonexistent flight delays caused by Clinton. And why the pile-on? Simple: The press was still angry with how their pals in the travel office had been treated. "There was a clear sense of retribution" in the media's haircut coverage, Newsweek's Mark Miller said at the time, because the media were "pissed off." Indeed, the resentment was growing, "whether it was conscious or subconscious," said John King, then working as White House correspondent for The Associated Press. "[S]o when people had a legitimate reason to kick [Clinton] as a buffoon, they went overboard." Try to recall, however, a single instance in early 2001 when the press went "overboard" and kicked Bush as a "buffoon" on the front pages for days on end regarding an essentially trivial process story. Cautious and respectful, the press did no such thing. "The truth is, this new president [Bush] has done things with relative impunity that would have been huge uproars if they had occurred under Clinton," The Washington Post's John Harris wrote in May 2001. Harris continued: Try to recall this major news story during Clinton's first 100 days: Under pressure from Western senators, the president capitulated on a minor part of his 1993 budget deal, grazing fees on ranchers using federal lands. A barrage of coverage had an unmistakable subtext: Clinton was weak and excessively political and caved to special interests. Bush has made numerous similar concessions on items far more central to the agenda he campaigned on, such as deemphasizing vouchers in his education plan and conceding that his tax cut will be some $350 billion smaller than he proposed. For the most part these repositionings are being cast as shrewd rather than servile. But if the press went easy on Bush in early 2001, if it looked the other way when he flip-flopped on campaign promises, that must have been thanks to the way the White House pampered reporters, right? Because journalists were quite open in 1993 about being offended by the White House's treatment and how being slighted, or "dissed," translated into tougher coverage. Recall that the press was angry about the way Democratic aides were uncommunicative and how few formal press conferences Clinton had held, and the way the Democrats were trying to go around the mainstream media. In truth, of course, if the Clinton team was guilty of slighting the press in 1993, the Bush team absolutely humiliated it. The Bush White House openly advertised its disdain for the press (former chief of staff Andrew Card famously dismissed the press as just another D.C. special interest group desperately seeking access), aides quickly formed habits of not returning reporters' calls, and Bush immediately canceled formal press briefings with reporters. And even the informal ones he held were rare in the first term. In fact, Bush held just 17 press conferences compared with Clinton's 44. (Despite the media's early grumbling, Clinton actually set a new mark for the most press conferences by any first-term president in the modern era.) Over time, it became clear to the entire country that the Bush White House did not respect the press, that it was dissing the press corps. The way the White House for years waved into press briefings a former $200-an-hour male escort with no journalism background and no serious press affiliation; the way the administration churned out misleading video news releases that crossed the legal line into "covert propaganda"; and the way the administration audaciously paid off pundits like Armstrong Williams to secretly hype White House initiatives. The media, though, didn't punish the Republican president with bad press. Contrary to the edicts laid down in the 1990s, the early Bush coverage was not affected by how the president and his staff slighted and controlled the press. Instead, the press sheepishly fell in line, nervous about having its already limited access even further restricted. The kowtowing was at times startling to watch. As Media Matters Senior Fellow Eric Alterman noted in 2003's What Liberal Media?: [T]he Bush team plays a kind of hardball that the Clintonians were never able to master. When Houston Chronicle reporter Bennett Roth asked press spokesman Ari Fleischer about underage drinking by the president's daughters, Fleischer informed him, Don Corleone-style, that his question had been "noted in the building." The implication was clear to all: More such unfriendly questions and Roth could be cut off, unable to do his job, and useless to his employers. The outcries of solidarity from Roth's colleagues in the press corps in the face of this public threat would not have disturbed the sleep of a napping newborn. There were other dynamics at play, as well. For instance, as the first Clinton term unfolded, there were open discussions among journalists about how they were anxious not to be tagged as being "in the tank" for Clinton. How they didn't want to be called out by The New Republic's running "Clinton Suck-Up Watch," which mocked journalists who the magazine saw as overly effusive in their praise of the new president. It was that professional anxiousness (i.e. that peer pressure) that led some to view the new Democratic administration through an unprecedented, hypercritical lens. It was also a phenomenon fueled by right-wing critics such as Rush Limbaugh who accused the press of having a liberal bias. Naturally, one way for the media to disprove that theory was to be especially hard on the new Democratic administration. "If you dared say anything complimentary [about Clinton] ... you were looked at like some sort of pathetic fool who was obviously in the tank," said Newsweek's Miller during Clinton's first year in office. At the time, observers suggested that get-tough approach toward Clinton simply reflected journalism's DNA. Brit Hume, then a White House correspondent for ABC News, insisted, "We live in a time when the worst thing that can be said about a journalist in Washington is that he or she is not 'tough.' " In 2001, however, very few journalists appeared concerned about being "in the tank" for Bush. In fact, the tank was quite crowded. It turns out, that urge among Beltway journalists to bend over backward for incoming Republican administrations goes back many years. Former Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee explained the phenomenon to Mark Hertsgaard in his book about the press, On Bended Knee: Stressing that it was "all totally subconscious," Bradlee explained that when Ronald Reagan came to Washington in 1980, journalists at the Post sensed that "here comes a really true conservative. ... And we are known -- though I don't think justifiably -- as the great liberals. So, [we thought] we've got to really behave ourselves here. We've got to not be arrogant, make every effort to be informed, be mannerly, be fair. And we did this. I suspect in the process that this paper and probably a good deal of the press gave Reagan not a free ride but they didn't use the same standards on him that they used on Carter and on Nixon." Just like with Reagan, the D.C. press corps went out of its way to behave itself with Bush, to be "fair" to the new conservative president. Looking ahead, that desire among journalists to be tough on Democrats in 2009 for fear of being tagged liberal or "in the tank" could certainly come into play when Obama is inaugurated. Because just as the press was derided by Republicans for going too easy on the Democratic baby boomer candidate in 1992 ("Liberal-Media Lynch Mob" buttons and T-shirts were seen at the GOP convention that year), reporters and pundits have been under constant attack in 2008 for going too soft on the Democratic baby boomer candidate. So, in order to "prove" their independence, will journalists unleash an assault on the new Democratic White House the way they did in 1993? And will the press pick seemingly random beefs to make its case against the Democratic president, the way it lashed out at Clinton for being overly interested and engrossed in the issues? And the way it said his transition team was too deliberative and close-mouthed when selecting the most senior members of his new administration? Believe it or not, in 1993, those were deemed to be serious strikes against Clinton. In terms of the latter, restless reporters resented how, during the transition period in late 1992, Democrats didn't dole out enough information about key appointments. "The transition ruined any good feeling that there might have been," Jeffrey Birnbaum, then a Wall Street Journal reporter, said in 1993. "The dark days of Little Rock after the election, I think, are what soured the press relations with the Clintons." The National Journal concurred in a report that year: The amity suffered, however, as the campaign continued -- as the crowd of reporters grew and Clinton's accessibility dwindled. It deteriorated more during the transition. Reporters ensconced in Little Rock, Ark., and in pursuit of a story each day focused on Clinton's leisurely pace in making appointments and on the campaign promises he'd forsaken. By Clinton's last press conference before moving north toward his new home, the tone of the questioning had grown nasty. Note that when Clinton's team didn't leak enough transition-team information, the press got mad and said that's when the relationship began to sour. But eight years later, when the Bush team didn't leak transition-team information in late 2000, the press praised the new White House for its discipline and message control, an obvious double standard. Meanwhile, one of the deepest ironies of examining the hostile/docile press models for the two previously inaugurated presidents is that one of the personal traits that the press relentlessly mocked in Clinton during his first months in office was his high intellectual metabolism, how he wanted to debate every subject and engage around the clock and hear all kinds of opinions about the day's most important topics. The press saw that as a very troubling sign because sometimes it forced Clinton to delay his final decisions. "This has led to a perception of weakness and indecisiveness," NBC's Andrea Mitchell announced at the time. (Bush's lack of intellectual curiosity eight years later did not seem to worry the press.) From the media's perspective, Clinton was too engaged in the pressing topics of the day. Let's hope the press doesn't foolishly hold that against the next hands-on, issues-oriented president.
Media Matters - Covering new presidents: the media's double standard {...}
Published: November 19, 2008, 9:50 pm - Indexed: November 21, 2008, 1:24 pm - Page Size: 40KB
Category: Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance

]]> Society > Issues > Business > Media > Bias and Balance {NORTH AMERICA > REAL ESTATE} - Share office space/Architect/Graphic artist/Writer/etc. (oakland west) $650 290sqft http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/north-america/united-states/california/metro-areas/san-francisco-bay-area/business-and-economy/real-estate/share-office-space-architect-graphic-artist-writer-20081181921.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/north-america/united-states/california/metro-areas/san-francisco-bay-area/business-and-economy/real-estate/share-office-space-architect-graphic-artist-writer-20081181921.htm Tue, 18 Nov 2008 05:02:53 GMT Studio office space to Share (Oakland. Off HW 880 . Near Alameda and Fruitvale Bart Station) Sharing with 1673 SF visual artist studio. Renovated Historic Cotton Mill Building. Near 880 Free way 23rd Ave. Ext.Å@5 minutes to ‘Fruitvale” BART station by car. 5 minutes by car to Park Ave. at Alameda’s main shopping and dining street. Office space is hardwood floor Mezzanine. (Private) about 290 SF Sharing luxury kitchens and new bathroom and utilities included. 24h access. Fully Air-conditioned and 3 Meg Internet connection. Gated parking lot. With possibility of sharing downstairs artist studio workspace and conference space are additional fee to be negotiated by day or week. Sfbay.Craigslist.Org Share office space/Architect/Graphic artist/Writer/etc. (oakland west) $650 290sqft {new window}   Sfbay.Craigslist.Org - Studio office space to Share (Oakland. Off HW 880 . Near Alameda and Fruitvale Bart Station) Sharing with 1673 SF visual artist studio. Renovated Historic Cotton Mill Building. Near 880 Free way 23rd Ave. Ext.Å@5 minutes to ‘Fruitvale” BART station by car. 5 minutes by car to Park Ave. at Alameda’s main shopping and dining street. Office space is hardwood floor Mezzanine. (Private) about 290 SF Sharing luxury kitchens and new bathroom and utilities included. 24h access. Fully Air-conditioned and 3 Meg Internet connection. Gated parking lot. With possibility of sharing downstairs artist studio workspace and conference space are additional fee to be negotiated by day or week.
Share office space/Architect/Graphic artist/Writer/etc. {...}
Published: November 18, 2008, 5:02 am - Indexed: November 18, 2008, 10:20 am - Page Size: 5KB
Category: Regional > North America > United States > California > Metro Areas > San Francisco Bay Area > Business and Economy > Real Estate

]]> Regional > North America > United States > California > Metro Areas > San Francisco Bay Area > Business and Economy > Real Estate {EUROPE > NEWS AND MEDIA} - Russell Brand: We cut the really bad stuff http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/europe/united-kingdom/news-and-media/russell-brand-we-cut-the-really-bad-stuff-2008114627.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/europe/united-kingdom/news-and-media/russell-brand-we-cut-the-really-bad-stuff-2008114627.htm Sun, 09 Nov 2008 00:05:04 GMT Russell Brand has revealed that the recording of the obscene messages left on the answering machine of the Fawlty Towers' actor Andrew Sachs had been toned down before it was aired.In an interview with the Observer Magazine, the first time that he has spoken at length about the events that led to his recent resignation from the BBC, Brand says: 'We took out the more personal stuff.' The comedian, who is now in Los Angeles, says he also believed Sachs had approved the contents of the pre-recorded radio show: 'The thing was, we were told that Andrew Sachs had okayed it.' He goes on to explain that he and his guest, Jonathan Ross, had been reassured by the fact that the 25-year-old independent producer of the programme had spoken to Sachs and agreed to edit out the lewdest sections of dialogue, which concerned Brand's sexual encounter with Sachs's 23-year-old granddaughter. 'The grey area is that our brilliant young producer, Nic Philps, called Andrew Sachs afterwards and said, "Is it OK? Can we use it? Do you mind?" And he said, "Oh yeah, but can you tone it down a bit?" So we did. We took out the more personal stuff.'Brand says neither he nor Ross would have behaved in the same way on a live show. 'Because it was a pre-record situation, it was a little bit more loose.'Some radio sources have suggested that not all of the series of offensive messages, aired on Brand's show, were left on Sachs's answering machine, but were recorded separately. The BBC said it could not confirm or deny this claim.Yesterday, the corporation broadcast an extended apology on Radio 2, but refused to comment on the findings of its continuing internal inquiry. Meg Poole, Sachs's agent, was interviewed in private at length by BBC executives on Tuesday and has received no further word from the corporation. It was Poole who first played a recording of the offending show to Sachs after the broadcast and then wrote a complaint to the BBC on his behalf. 'Andrew was surprised by the length of the broadcast,' she told The Observer last week. 'He said to me he had thought they were not going to run it.' Yesterday's Radio 2 apology said: 'On 18 October, the BBC broadcast an exchange between Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross on the Russell Brand show on Radio 2. This concerned the actor Andrew Sachs and his granddaughter, Georgina Baillie. Some of this exchange was left on the voicemail of Mr Sachs. The conversation was grossly offensive and an unacceptable intrusion into the private lives of both Mr Sachs and Ms Baillie.'Brand argues this weekend that he had no 'malicious intent': 'It was like an evolving, rolling thing. If you listen, I say "sorry" more than I say anything offensive. The message is mostly an apology. In fact, it is the acknowledgement of how wrong it was that is the source of the comedy.' The comedian and actor, who is to appear alongside Adam Sandler in the forthcoming Disney film Bedtime Stories, to be released on Boxing Day, and who has been cast as Johnny Depp's brother in the next Pirates of the Caribbean film, said that he accepted full responsibility for doing something 'daft'. 'What's difficult about the whole thing is that it was completely devoid of malice and there's been a retrospective application of cruelty and intention to cause offence,' he said. Brand has resigned from the BBC, while Ross has been suspended without pay for three months. Brand also tells the magazine he will not let the incident change his style of humour: 'I can't let it change what I do, other than when I make a programme have an editor look at all aspects of it, to see if it will offend on a personal level.'He denies the allegation made by fellow Radio 2 presenter Paul Gambaccini that he had sacked a series of producers on the show.In a documentary about the events, to be broadcast on Wednesday evening on Channel Five, Baillie, a burlesque dancer, will say that she regrets the impact of the incident on the careers of Brand and Ross.Russell BrandJonathan RossBBCRadioguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds Guardian.Co.Uk Russell Brand: We cut the really bad stuff {new window}   Www.Guardian.Co.Uk - Russell Brand has revealed that the recording of the obscene messages left on the answering machine of the Fawlty Towers' actor Andrew Sachs had been toned down before it was aired.In an interview with the Observer Magazine, the first time that he has spoken at length about the events that led to his recent resignation from the BBC, Brand says: 'We took out the more personal stuff.' The comedian, who is now in Los Angeles, says he also believed Sachs had approved the contents of the pre-recorded radio show: 'The thing was, we were told that Andrew Sachs had okayed it.' He goes on to explain that he and his guest, Jonathan Ross, had been reassured by the fact that the 25-year-old independent producer of the programme had spoken to Sachs and agreed to edit out the lewdest sections of dialogue, which concerned Brand's sexual encounter with Sachs's 23-year-old granddaughter. 'The grey area is that our brilliant young producer, Nic Philps, called Andrew Sachs afterwards and said, "Is it OK? Can we use it? Do you mind?" And he said, "Oh yeah, but can you tone it down a bit?" So we did. We took out the more personal stuff.'Brand says neither he nor Ross would have behaved in the same way on a live show. 'Because it was a pre-record situation, it was a little bit more loose.'Some radio sources have suggested that not all of the series of offensive messages, aired on Brand's show, were left on Sachs's answering machine, but were recorded separately. The BBC said it could not confirm or deny this claim.Yesterday, the corporation broadcast an extended apology on Radio 2, but refused to comment on the findings of its continuing internal inquiry. Meg Poole, Sachs's agent, was interviewed in private at length by BBC executives on Tuesday and has received no further word from the corporation. It was Poole who first played a recording of the offending show to Sachs after the broadcast and then wrote a complaint to the BBC on his behalf. 'Andrew was surprised by the length of the broadcast,' she told The Observer last week. 'He said to me he had thought they were not going to run it.' Yesterday's Radio 2 apology said: 'On 18 October, the BBC broadcast an exchange between Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross on the Russell Brand show on Radio 2. This concerned the actor Andrew Sachs and his granddaughter, Georgina Baillie. Some of this exchange was left on the voicemail of Mr Sachs. The conversation was grossly offensive and an unacceptable intrusion into the private lives of both Mr Sachs and Ms Baillie.'Brand argues this weekend that he had no 'malicious intent': 'It was like an evolving, rolling thing. If you listen, I say "sorry" more than I say anything offensive. The message is mostly an apology. In fact, it is the acknowledgement of how wrong it was that is the source of the comedy.' The comedian and actor, who is to appear alongside Adam Sandler in the forthcoming Disney film Bedtime Stories, to be released on Boxing Day, and who has been cast as Johnny Depp's brother in the next Pirates of the Caribbean film, said that he accepted full responsibility for doing something 'daft'. 'What's difficult about the whole thing is that it was completely devoid of malice and there's been a retrospective application of cruelty and intention to cause offence,' he said. Brand has resigned from the BBC, while Ross has been suspended without pay for three months. Brand also tells the magazine he will not let the incident change his style of humour: 'I can't let it change what I do, other than when I make a programme have an editor look at all aspects of it, to see if it will offend on a personal level.'He denies the allegation made by fellow Radio 2 presenter Paul Gambaccini that he had sacked a series of producers on the show.In a documentary about the events, to be broadcast on Wednesday evening on Channel Five, Baillie, a burlesque dancer, will say that she regrets the impact of the incident on the careers of Brand and Ross.Russell BrandJonathan RossBBCRadioguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Russell Brand: We cut the really bad stuff | Media | The Observer {...} Comic says the most offensive parts of the Sachs messages were edited out before the broadcast {...}
Published: November 9, 2008, 12:05 am - Indexed: November 9, 2008, 10:44 am - Page Size: 79KB
Category: Regional > Europe > United Kingdom > News and Media

]]> Regional > Europe > United Kingdom > News and Media {EUROPE > NEWS AND MEDIA} - Ask Hadley: Hadley Freeman on high heels and leather leggings http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/europe/united-kingdom/news-and-media/ask-hadley-hadley-freeman-on-high-heels-and-leather-2008119016.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/europe/united-kingdom/news-and-media/ask-hadley-hadley-freeman-on-high-heels-and-leather-2008119016.htm Mon, 03 Nov 2008 00:11:06 GMT I am a woman but I hate wearing high heels. Is there any hope for me?Sara Miller, by emailMystic Meg I may not be (despite the nightly exercises, my voice remains dismayingly unbreathy) but a vision is coming before me. I see a time, a time in the none too distant future when our progeny's progeny's progeny's progeny will look back in wonderment that women ever wore high heels at all, and will regard the perverted practice the way we think of corsets: as a torturous form of masochism that women willingly subjected themselves to in the name of creating what is perceived to be a better shape.I'm not going to lie to you. Round here, like John McCain we live on the Straight Talk Express. So, yes, it is true, a lengthened leg does look thinner and, um, longer emerging from a high heel than a stumpy flat. But so does a defined waist compared to a solid trunk: that doesn't mean that one should contort one's body and damage one's health to achieve this effect. Having bigger eyes is largely assumed to be a nice thing but that doesn't mean we should all walk around with toothpicks stretching out our lids. (Don't get any ideas, designer folk.)Going back to the corset analogy, one this column plans to hammer out to the death today, this is yet another example of an idea of human aesthetics taken too far. Yes, a defined waist is a good thing: a waist that is freakishly shrunk to 43cm (17in), and with the crushed ribs to prove it, is not. Similarly, long legs are always welcome. Legs shoved up on weird little toothpicks, forcing the knees to go all bandy-like and the lower spine to be crushed downwards, are not. The legs are meant to be longer naturally, not attenuated by you standing on your tiptoes, see? High heels may be synonymous with sexy but the grumpiness, pain and immobility that tend to be high heels' side-effects mitigate any of the alleged sexiness the shoes bring. Just as there is something very disturbing about seeing a woman whose waist is half the circumference of her hips (as anyone who's seen a photo of Dita von Teese romping naked - and who hasn't? - knows), is there not something comical about seeing a room full of women trotting about on their tippy toes? Is there not something "small children make-believing at being grown-ups" about the whole look? Are there enough rhetorical questions in this column yet? Ladies of the world, unite! Come down to my stumpy level and fight against this nonsensical tyranny, you know it makes sense. I may rise on a lower plane in the physical world, but in the land of moral rectitude, I rise high above them all.I have been noticing an increasing number of young women wearing leather leggings. Is this advisable?Milly Valentine, by emailOh, I love a good spoon-feeding, I do. Bless you, my readers, for making my daily job as light and lovely as free-floating feather.Of course leather leggings aren't advisable. The name itself rather gives it away: there is leather, which only looks good on Bruce Springsteen and cows, and there are leggings, which look good on no one. But I'll give designers this: they aren't half clever. Rarely has a garment fitted in so neatly to the current teen and twentysomething zeitgeist as a pair of leather leggings. This is a generation that likes to get its legs out, hence the enduring popularity of short shorts, even in the winter, and the seemingly unstoppable rise of leggings. But it is also one, as we discussed last week in regard to band T-shirts, that has a strangely sepia-hued view of the 1960s and scuzzy rockers. I blame Kate Moss for all of this, and I'm increasingly blaming Peaches Geldof, too, for this and many, many other blights on my life. It may seem extreme to take Peaches as a representative of any section of the human race, but an afternoon unwisely spent in the atrium of Topshop should prove to any sniffing doubters that she does seem to be the template for a whole demographic in this country. Hence, leather leggings: they show off the legs while simultaneously looking like something Nikki Sixx might have worn which, to the astonishment of us oldies, now seems to be A Good Thing as opposed to A Health Hazard. Now, some of you may be eating your breakfast. Some may have a more finely developed sense of decorum than moi. So relying on the crutch of euphemism, it's this concern for the nation's health that really worries me about this garment. They surely can't do one's bits many favours, right? And, oh my stars, imagine what a pain it would be to go to the loo. It's these kinds of searing inquiries that gives this page its reputation for being like a combination of Diana Vreeland and Seymour Hersh.? Post questions to Ask Hadley, The Guardian, 119 Farringdon Road, London EC1R 3ER. email: ask.hadley@guardian.co.ukFashionWomenguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds Guardian.Co.Uk Ask Hadley: Hadley Freeman on high heels and leather leggings {new window}   Www.Guardian.Co.Uk - I am a woman but I hate wearing high heels. Is there any hope for me?Sara Miller, by emailMystic Meg I may not be (despite the nightly exercises, my voice remains dismayingly unbreathy) but a vision is coming before me. I see a time, a time in the none too distant future when our progeny's progeny's progeny's progeny will look back in wonderment that women ever wore high heels at all, and will regard the perverted practice the way we think of corsets: as a torturous form of masochism that women willingly subjected themselves to in the name of creating what is perceived to be a better shape.I'm not going to lie to you. Round here, like John McCain we live on the Straight Talk Express. So, yes, it is true, a lengthened leg does look thinner and, um, longer emerging from a high heel than a stumpy flat. But so does a defined waist compared to a solid trunk: that doesn't mean that one should contort one's body and damage one's health to achieve this effect. Having bigger eyes is largely assumed to be a nice thing but that doesn't mean we should all walk around with toothpicks stretching out our lids. (Don't get any ideas, designer folk.)Going back to the corset analogy, one this column plans to hammer out to the death today, this is yet another example of an idea of human aesthetics taken too far. Yes, a defined waist is a good thing: a waist that is freakishly shrunk to 43cm (17in), and with the crushed ribs to prove it, is not. Similarly, long legs are always welcome. Legs shoved up on weird little toothpicks, forcing the knees to go all bandy-like and the lower spine to be crushed downwards, are not. The legs are meant to be longer naturally, not attenuated by you standing on your tiptoes, see? High heels may be synonymous with sexy but the grumpiness, pain and immobility that tend to be high heels' side-effects mitigate any of the alleged sexiness the shoes bring. Just as there is something very disturbing about seeing a woman whose waist is half the circumference of her hips (as anyone who's seen a photo of Dita von Teese romping naked - and who hasn't? - knows), is there not something comical about seeing a room full of women trotting about on their tippy toes? Is there not something "small children make-believing at being grown-ups" about the whole look? Are there enough rhetorical questions in this column yet? Ladies of the world, unite! Come down to my stumpy level and fight against this nonsensical tyranny, you know it makes sense. I may rise on a lower plane in the physical world, but in the land of moral rectitude, I rise high above them all.I have been noticing an increasing number of young women wearing leather leggings. Is this advisable?Milly Valentine, by emailOh, I love a good spoon-feeding, I do. Bless you, my readers, for making my daily job as light and lovely as free-floating feather.Of course leather leggings aren't advisable. The name itself rather gives it away: there is leather, which only looks good on Bruce Springsteen and cows, and there are leggings, which look good on no one. But I'll give designers this: they aren't half clever. Rarely has a garment fitted in so neatly to the current teen and twentysomething zeitgeist as a pair of leather leggings. This is a generation that likes to get its legs out, hence the enduring popularity of short shorts, even in the winter, and the seemingly unstoppable rise of leggings. But it is also one, as we discussed last week in regard to band T-shirts, that has a strangely sepia-hued view of the 1960s and scuzzy rockers. I blame Kate Moss for all of this, and I'm increasingly blaming Peaches Geldof, too, for this and many, many other blights on my life. It may seem extreme to take Peaches as a representative of any section of the human race, but an afternoon unwisely spent in the atrium of Topshop should prove to any sniffing doubters that she does seem to be the template for a whole demographic in this country. Hence, leather leggings: they show off the legs while simultaneously looking like something Nikki Sixx might have worn which, to the astonishment of us oldies, now seems to be A Good Thing as opposed to A Health Hazard. Now, some of you may be eating your breakfast. Some may have a more finely developed sense of decorum than moi. So relying on the crutch of euphemism, it's this concern for the nation's health that really worries me about this garment. They surely can't do one's bits many favours, right? And, oh my stars, imagine what a pain it would be to go to the loo. It's these kinds of searing inquiries that gives this page its reputation for being like a combination of Diana Vreeland and Seymour Hersh.? Post questions to Ask Hadley, The Guardian, 119 Farringdon Road, London EC1R 3ER. email: ask.hadley@guardian.co.ukFashionWomenguardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2008 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
Ask Hadley: Hadley Freeman on high heels and leather leggings | Life and style | The Guardian {...} Ask Hadley: I hate wearing high heels. Is there any hope for me? And young women wearing leather leggings. Is this advisable? {...}
Published: November 3, 2008, 12:11 am - Indexed: November 3, 2008, 12:57 pm - Page Size: 76KB
Category: Regional > Europe > United Kingdom > News and Media

]]> Regional > Europe > United Kingdom > News and Media {NORTH AMERICA > LODGING} - Stay at the Village (Mammoth) 1bd http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/north-america/united-states/california/metro-areas/san-francisco-bay-area/travel-and-tourism/lodging/stay-at-the-village-mammoth-1bd-20081070023.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/north-america/united-states/california/metro-areas/san-francisco-bay-area/travel-and-tourism/lodging/stay-at-the-village-mammoth-1bd-20081070023.htm Tue, 21 Oct 2008 06:21:51 GMT   50 Hillside Dr, Mammoth Lakes, CA Steps to the Gondola at Canyon Lodge 1BR/1BA Vacation Condo   Bedrooms 1 Bathrooms 1 full, 0 partial Sq Footage 960 Parking 2 dedicated DESCRIPTION Great condo in the heart of Mammoth. see additional photos below RENTAL FEATURES Air conditioning Central heat Fireplace Dining room Dishwasher Refrigerator Stove/Oven Microwave Balcony, Deck, or Patio Swimming pool Jacuzzi/Whirlpool Cable-ready High-speed internet COMMUNITY FEATURES Garage parking Covered parking Guest parking Fitness center Sauna/Spa Lake Gated property Secured entry Elevator New property (< 5 years) RENTAL RATES For more information, rates, and availablability, visit us at our website: CLICK HERE ADDITIONAL PHOTOS Megan Acorn often referred to as Meg is Elias' wife whom he met and married after running away from his duties as prince When they first met and married Meg had no clue that Elias was a prince Even after this discovery Elias stayed with Megan in Feral Forest until Princess Sally married Antoine Knowing Antoine wasn't leadership material Elias assumed the mantle with Megan and their daughter Alexis moving into Castle Acorn with him//bpy wikipedia org/wiki/%E0%A6%97%E0%A7%8B%E0%A6%AD%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A1%E0%A7%8B%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%8DThe Sword of Acorns possessing Sally as King Max and Queen Alicia watch Max wearing the inactive CrownHis 2008 project El Mundo es Tuyo (The World is Yours) shown at Mary Boone and Zach Feuer galleries in New York consisted of a film that involved references to the Sfbay.Craigslist.Org Stay at the Village (Mammoth) 1bd {new window}   Sfbay.Craigslist.Org -   50 Hillside Dr, Mammoth Lakes, CA Steps to the Gondola at Canyon Lodge 1BR/1BA Vacation Condo   Bedrooms 1 Bathrooms 1 full, 0 partial Sq Footage 960 Parking 2 dedicated DESCRIPTION Great condo in the heart of Mammoth. see additional photos below RENTAL FEATURES Air conditioning Central heat Fireplace Dining room Dishwasher Refrigerator Stove/Oven Microwave Balcony, Deck, or Patio Swimming pool Jacuzzi/Whirlpool Cable-ready High-speed internet COMMUNITY FEATURES Garage parking Covered parking Guest parking Fitness center Sauna/Spa Lake Gated property Secured entry Elevator New property (< 5 years) RENTAL RATES For more information, rates, and availablability, visit us at our website: CLICK HERE ADDITIONAL PHOTOS Megan Acorn often referred to as Meg is Elias' wife whom he met and married after running away from his duties as prince When they first met and married Meg had no clue that Elias was a prince Even after this discovery Elias stayed with Megan in Feral Forest until Princess Sally married Antoine Knowing Antoine wasn't leadership material Elias assumed the mantle with Megan and their daughter Alexis moving into Castle Acorn with him//bpy wikipedia org/wiki/%E0%A6%97%E0%A7%8B%E0%A6%AD%E0%A7%87%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%A8%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%A1%E0%A7%8B%E0%A6%B0%E0%A7%8DThe Sword of Acorns possessing Sally as King Max and Queen Alicia watch Max wearing the inactive CrownHis 2008 project El Mundo es Tuyo (The World is Yours) shown at Mary Boone and Zach Feuer galleries in New York consisted of a film that involved references to the
Stay at the Village {...}
Published: October 21, 2008, 6:21 am - Indexed: October 21, 2008, 12:22 pm - Page Size: 15KB
Category: Regional > North America > United States > California > Metro Areas > San Francisco Bay Area > Travel and Tourism > Lodging

]]> Regional > North America > United States > California > Metro Areas > San Francisco Bay Area > Travel and Tourism > Lodging {INTERNET > GOOGLE} - The Presidential debate: Expanding the town hall http://articles.world-of-newave.info/computers/internet/searching/search-engines/google/the-presidential-debate-expanding-the-town-hall-2008106128.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/computers/internet/searching/search-engines/google/the-presidential-debate-expanding-the-town-hall-2008106128.htm Thu, 09 Oct 2008 12:37:46 GMT As we promised, here's an update on the search patterns we observed during last night's presidential debate. While a few lucky citizens were able to ask the candidates questions directly, millions of others used Google to find their answers.Similar to last Thursday, people sought to understand the meaning of several words mentioned in the debate: morass, commodity, junket, cynicism, and cronyism to name a few. In the chart below you can see four of the most popular queries during the debate. People were quite interested in both Meg Whitman and Warren Buffett, who were mentioned as potential candidates for the Secretary of Treasury, but the biggest rising query was Senator McCain's paraphrasing of Theodore Roosevelt's motto. Both candidates spoke against genocide while discussing the role of the United States as a peacekeeper, and as we saw in the vice presidential debate, nuclear energy and weapons were prominent topics.Queries occurred as the candidates talked, but the query volume dropped after 90-minute debate ended. Here's an additional view on queries for each of the candidates, charting queries from swing states (which had no more than a 5% gap between votes for George Bush and John Kerry in the 2004 election) and non-swing states. Swing states generated proportionally more queries for the candidates than non-swing states. Both candidates peaked at the end of the debate, with McCain showing a larger spike while Obama has a larger overall volume. Queries for the presidential candidates form a higher fraction of all queries in swing states.We also were curious how queries for Senator Biden and Governor Palin during their debate compared to queries for Senators McCain and Obama last night. As you see here, searches on the candidates during the VP debate came out on top:Queries containing "Biden" and "Palin" had higher peaks during last week's debatethan did "McCain" and "Obama" queries last night.Using Google Hot Trends you can see some of the more interesting things people were researching during this debate. Visit Google Election Trends to learn about longer-term election-related Google search queries, and read our previous post for the earlier VP debate queries.Posted by Jeffrey D. Oldham, Software Engineer, and Fred Leach, Customer Labs Analyst Blogger.Com The Presidential debate: Expanding the town hall {new window}   Www.Blogger.Com - As we promised, here's an update on the search patterns we observed during last night's presidential debate. While a few lucky citizens were able to ask the candidates questions directly, millions of others used Google to find their answers.Similar to last Thursday, people sought to understand the meaning of several words mentioned in the debate: morass, commodity, junket, cynicism, and cronyism to name a few. In the chart below you can see four of the most popular queries during the debate. People were quite interested in both Meg Whitman and Warren Buffett, who were mentioned as potential candidates for the Secretary of Treasury, but the biggest rising query was Senator McCain's paraphrasing of Theodore Roosevelt's motto. Both candidates spoke against genocide while discussing the role of the United States as a peacekeeper, and as we saw in the vice presidential debate, nuclear energy and weapons were prominent topics.Queries occurred as the candidates talked, but the query volume dropped after 90-minute debate ended. Here's an additional view on queries for each of the candidates, charting queries from swing states (which had no more than a 5% gap between votes for George Bush and John Kerry in the 2004 election) and non-swing states. Swing states generated proportionally more queries for the candidates than non-swing states. Both candidates peaked at the end of the debate, with McCain showing a larger spike while Obama has a larger overall volume. Queries for the presidential candidates form a higher fraction of all queries in swing states.We also were curious how queries for Senator Biden and Governor Palin during their debate compared to queries for Senators McCain and Obama last night. As you see here, searches on the candidates during the VP debate came out on top:Queries containing "Biden" and "Palin" had higher peaks during last week's debatethan did "McCain" and "Obama" queries last night.Using Google Hot Trends you can see some of the more interesting things people were researching during this debate. Visit Google Election Trends to learn about longer-term election-related Google search queries, and read our previous post for the earlier VP debate queries.Posted by Jeffrey D. Oldham, Software Engineer, and Fred Leach, Customer Labs Analyst
Indexed: October 9, 2008, 12:37 pm - Page Size: 8KB
Category: Computers > Internet > Searching > Search Engines > Google

]]> Computers > Internet > Searching > Search Engines > Google {NEWS > BREAKING NEWS} - Whitman Sampler — Pick a Silicon Valley Exec for Treasury Secretary http://articles.world-of-newave.info/news/breaking-news/whitman-sampler-8212-pick-a-silicon-valley-exec-2008109045.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/news/breaking-news/whitman-sampler-8212-pick-a-silicon-valley-exec-2008109045.htm Wed, 08 Oct 2008 21:20:00 GMT At last night?s debate John McCain was asked who he might choose as his Treasury Secretary. He dropped the name of billionaire Warren Buffett but his top pick in all seriousness was former eBay CEO Meg Whitman. Who else do you think the new president should consider from Silicon Valley, if anyone? Vote early and often, and suggest your own choices. Blog.Wired.Com Whitman Sampler — Pick a Silicon Valley Exec for Treasury Secretary {new window}   Blog.Wired.Com - At last night?s debate John McCain was asked who he might choose as his Treasury Secretary. He dropped the name of billionaire Warren Buffett but his top pick in all seriousness was former eBay CEO Meg Whitman. Who else do you think the new president should consider from Silicon Valley, if anyone? Vote early and often, and suggest your own choices.
McCain Would Tap Into Silicon Valley for Treasury Secretary. Would You? | Epicenter from Wired.com {...}
Published: October 8, 2008, 9:20 pm - Indexed: October 15, 2008, 12:07 pm - Page Size: 86KB
Category: News > Breaking News

]]> News > Breaking News {NORTH AMERICA > RENTALS} - 2ba San Rafael Terra Linda- Great house - Great Location (san rafael) $2500 3bd http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/north-america/united-states/california/metro-areas/san-francisco-bay-area/business-and-economy/real-estate/rentals/2ba-san-rafael-terra-linda-great-house-great-location-2008109822.htm http://articles.world-of-newave.info/regional/north-america/united-states/california/metro-areas/san-francisco-bay-area/business-and-economy/real-estate/rentals/2ba-san-rafael-terra-linda-great-house-great-location-2008109822.htm Thu, 02 Oct 2008 06:24:06 GMT Great Family House. Family room with fireplace, separate living/ dining room. Kitchen with eat-in area. Two-car garage with storage loft. Washer and dryer. Backyard with patio and lawn and low maintenance garden. Centrally located in lovely residential neighborhood. Walk to Northgate 1 and Northgate Mall. Walk to Scotty’s Market. Close to public transportation and Kaiser. Dixie school district. Close to playgrounds and school fields. A non-smoker house. Pets to be negotiated. Arias near Elena Circle. Call Alan or Meg at (510) 597-0585 or (415) 860-1090. Sfbay.Craigslist.Org 2ba San Rafael Terra Linda- Great house - Great Location (san rafael) $2500 3bd {new window}   Sfbay.Craigslist.Org - Great Family House. Family room with fireplace, separate living/ dining room. Kitchen with eat-in area. Two-car garage with storage loft. Washer and dryer. Backyard with patio and lawn and low maintenance garden. Centrally located in lovely residential neighborhood. Walk to Northgate 1 and Northgate Mall. Walk to Scotty’s Market. Close to public transportation and Kaiser. Dixie school district. Close to playgrounds and school fields. A non-smoker house. Pets to be negotiated. Arias near Elena Circle. Call Alan or Meg at (510) 597-0585 or (415) 860-1090.
2ba San Rafael Terra Linda- Great house - Great Location {...}
Published: October 2, 2008, 6:24 am - Indexed: October 2, 2008, 8:34 am - Page Size: 5KB
Category: Regional > North America > United States > California > Metro Areas > San Francisco Bay Area > Business and Economy > Real Estate > Rentals

]]> Regional > North America > United States > California > Metro Areas > San Francisco Bay Area > Business and Economy > Real Estate > Rentals