News, politics, and this week, NCAA basketball. But play nice, especially after reading this hilarious parody of Huffington's faux George Clooney blog post at Ace of Spades. Watch as Clay Aiken admits to... being a liberal.

Update 3-17: Please move the discussion to Friday's open thread.

As noted by Tim Graham Tuesday in a NewsBusters item about 60 Minutes correspondent Mike Wallace announcing that he will retire at the end of this season, “perhaps the most-recounted Wallace anecdote didn't appear on CBS, but on PBS.” Indeed, on an edition of the PBS panel series Ethics in America, devoted to war coverage, which was taped at Harvard in late 1987, Mike Wallace proclaimed that if he were traveling with enemy soldiers he would not warn U.S. soldiers of an impending ambush. “Don't you have a higher duty as an American citizen to do all you can to save the lives of soldiers rather than this journalistic ethic of reporting fact?", moderator Charles Ogletree Jr. suggested. Without hesitating, Wallace responded: "No, you don't have higher duty...you're a reporter." When Brent Scrowcroft, the then-future National Security Adviser, argued that "you're Americans first, and you're journalists second," Wallace was mystified by the concept, wondering "what in the world is wrong with photographing this attack by [the imaginary] North Kosanese on American soldiers?"

George Connell, a Marine Corps Colonel, reacted with disdain: "I feel utter contempt. Two days later they're both walking off my hilltop, they're two hundred yards away and they get ambushed. And they're lying there wounded. And they're going to expect I'm going to send Marines up there to get them. They're just journalists, they're not Americans." The discussion concluded as Connell fretted: "But I'll do it. And that's what makes me so contemptuous of them. And Marines will die, going to get a couple of journalists." (More quotes follow.)

Video excerpt #1, comments from Peter Jennings and Mike Wallace (3:10) Real (2.4 MB) or Windows Media (2 MB). Plus MP3 audio (560 KB)

Video excerpt #2, angry reaction from Marine Colonel George Connell (38 secs) Real (500 KB) or Windows Media (450 KB). Plus MP3 audio (115 KB) See note below about video quality.

Although an offer is rumored to be imminent, there appears to be an upper management split at CBS concerning the hiring of Katie Couric as anchor for the “Evening News.” According to Drudge, even though CBS President Les Moonves is “convinced Katie Couric is the right person for the job,” this is “despite warnings from top management that the move could have lackluster results.”

What makes them feel this way? “Nervous executives at CBS have been examining tapes of Couric from August 2001 -- and nitpicking her performance -- when she substituted for a vacationing Tom Brokaw.”

Apparently, their findings weren’t very positive:

Does CBS anchor Bob Schieffer think that if he issues ominous warnings about "civil war" in Iraq often enough it will eventually come true and vindicate his, as of yet, unfulfilled predictions? Neither ABC or NBC raised "civil war" in their Wednesday evening newscasts, but Bob Schieffer, who has been the most prolific anchor in pushing the dire warning, did so again as he pegged off how Saddam Hussein has turned his trial into a "farce" to insist that "Iraq teeters on the edge of civil war." Schieffer opened his broadcast with a downbeat litany: "Iraq's new parliament is scheduled to meet for the first time tomorrow, but again today political leaders could not agree on a cabinet to take charge of the government, top cleric's appeals for calm went unheeded and the country may be closer than ever to civil war..."

Jessica Simpson’s presence can make any story at least a little bit exciting and it seemed to get the best of ABC’s Bill Weir as he filled in for Charlie Gibson on this morning’s Good Morning America. Simpson, due in Washington today to lobby Congress on behalf of her favorite charity, turned down an invitation to a Republican fundraiser. GMA painted it as yet more bad news for President Bush.

After an introduction from Weir, reporter Andrea Canning described it as a strong rebuff of Bush, "Jessica Simpson has no trouble serving up pizza in her latest TV commercial, but when it comes to appearing with fellow Texan President Bush, the red, white and blonde actress is drawing the line." Then adding that Simpson said of the chance to attend the dinner, "It just feels wrong." Eventually, Canning noted that Simpson wanted to avoid politicizing the charity she was in town to promote.

Fresh from his latest stint with Letterman, leftist comedian/radio host/potential Senate candidate Al Franken appeared on Comedy Central's "The Colbert Report" on Wednesday night, for yet another course in double-O'Reilly bashing. The transcript reads like a rerun episode of the Keith Olbermann interview on Tuesday:

Colbert: "What do you have against Papa Bear?"

Franken: "Um, let's see, he's, he's a lout."

Colbert: "Mm-hmm."

Franken: "He's a liar."

Colbert: "‘Kay."

Franken: "He’s...a moron or an idiot."

Colbert: "Mm-hmm."

Franken: "He's a bully – he’s a hypocrite, he's a huge hypocrite."

Former co-host of CNN's "Crossfire" Bill Press, who now has a syndicated column and a radio show on Sirius satellite radio, bashed the White House's new efforts at combating leaks.

The Bushies are launching their war on leaks, says the [Washington] Post, because they’re upset at newspaper accounts of the network of secret CIA torture prisons and on Bush’s warrantless phone taps of American citizens. Bush even accused the New York Times, which first reported on the NSA spy program, of committing a “shameless act.”

The White House declaring war on journalists? How ironic! How hypocritical! How dangerous! And how Nixonian!

Yes, isn’t it ironic? Bush is now resurrecting a seldom-used 1917 law to go after journalists and their sources. Yet, not so long ago, in the NSA spying scandal, he claimed he couldn’t obey a 1978 law requiring a court order before tapping Americans’ phone calls because it was an “old law.” So old laws are OK after all, as long as Bush agrees with them.

Mark Levin's radio show began with a cannon blast at Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who claimed in a recent speech that threats against her life from the "irrational fringe" are encouraged by congressional Republican and conservative criticism of the court. (See all the rhetorical highlights on Levin's NRO blog.) AP reporter Gina Holland wrote up Justice Ginsburg's speech with energetic emphasis on Ginsburg's thesis that conservative criticism apparently/inevitably leads to violence:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she and former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor have been the targets of death threats from the "irrational fringe" of society, people apparently spurred by Republican criticism of the high court.

In the liberal British paper The Guardian, reprinted in The Sydney Morning Herald, Annie Proulx, the author of the short story that inspired "Brokeback Mountain," has lashed out at Hollywood and the Academy Awards.

She complains that Hollywood, ironically, is not liberal enough, which explains why they still hate "gays and fags."

On the sidewalk stood hordes of the righteous, some leaning forward like wind-bent grasses, the better to deliver their imprecations against gays and fags to the open windows of the limos - the windows open by order of the security people - creeping towards the Kodak Theatre for the 78th Academy Awards. Others held up sturdy, professionally crafted signs expressing the same hatred....

The people connected with Brokeback Mountain, including me, hoped that, having been nominated for eight Academy Awards, it would get best picture, as it had at the funny, lively Independent Spirit awards the day before. (If you are looking for smart judging based on merit, skip the Academy Awards next year and pay attention to the Independent Spirit choices.) We should have known conservative heffalump academy voters would have rather different ideas of what was stirring contemporary culture.... And rumour has it that Lions Gate inundated the academy voters with DVD copies of Trash - excuse me - Crash a few weeks before the ballot deadline. Next year we can look to the awards for controversial themes on the punishment of adulterers with a branding iron in the shape of the letter A, runaway slaves, and the debate over free silver....

This is an interesting article. By interesting, I mean convoluted and misleading. The header, in a rare inversion of typical news, is closer to the truth than the article itself is.

David Kirkpatrick misunderstands (or willfully mischaracterizes) Rush Limbaugh’s sarcastic remarks on his radio program regarding the UAE port / terminal deboggle:

“They (the Democrats) finally found the issue where they could convince the American people that they, too, see an enemy," Mr. Limbaugh said on his radio program.”

You'd think that of all days, they'd be believers over at Today this morning. After all, they were blessed with presidential poll numbers for which they were surely praying.  Numbers so low that Matt Lauer, Tim Russert et. al could spend an extended first segment reveling in them. 

Ironically, in sowing some GOP dissent, Lauer even used the language of religion, suggesting the low numbers were "a blessing in disguise" for congressional Republicans because "they can look and say I don't have a popular president here, I can turn my back on that president."   Remind Frist and Hastert not to invite you to the next GOP Unity Rally, Matt.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsburg gave a speech in South Africa last month, which, for some reason, is just now being publicized. Ginsburg's speech was titled "A Decent Respect for the Opinions of [Human]kind." In it, Ginsburg argued explicitly for the relevance of foreign law and court decisions to interpretation of the American Constitution. Ginsburg did not try to hide the partisan nature of this issue; at one point, she referred to "the perspective I share with four of my current colleagues," and she specifically criticized Justice Antonin Scalia, Judge Richard Posner, and the two bills that were introduced in Congress in 2004 and were broadly supported by Republicans. And she indulged in an outrageous bit of demagoguery, suggesting that those who disagree with her are somehow aligned with Justice Taney's infamous defense of slavery in the Dred Scott case.

One tried-and-true way to measure a media bias is to compare and contrast events. The comparisons are rarely perfect, but they can illuminate that the "news" is very much a product of human opinion, and rarely do the major media’s assignment editors seem to consider how they covered something in 2006 to something they covered in 1996 (or sometimes, how they covered something in March compared to December). Today’s experiment: Russ Feingold’s censure ploy versus Rep. Bob Barr making rumbles about a Clinton impeachment in 1997. The WashPost put Feingold on A-1 and A-2 yesterday. What about Bob?

It broke out at exactly this time of year in 1997, when Barr, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, suggested to chairman Henry Hyde that they consider impeachment for Clinton for illegal fundraising from China and other scandals. Hyde was asked about it on "Fox News Sunday," and said they were studying it, but found it a "bit of a stretch." Both the Post and the Washington Times put a few paragraphs in on Monday, March 17. Then the paths diverge.

WASHINGTON (March 15) - Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she and former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor have been the targets of death threats from the "irrational fringe" of society, people apparently spurred by Republican criticism of the high court.

Security concerns among judges have been growing.

Conservative commentator Ann Coulter joked earlier this year that Justice John Paul Stevens should be poisoned. Over the past few months O'Connor has complained that criticism, mainly by Republicans, has threatened judicial independence to deal with difficult issues like gay marriage.

In one of the more ugly and mean-spirited op-ed pieces in the Los Angeles Times this year, opinion writer Erin Aubry Kaplan likened former Bush staffer Claude Allen to a "house Negro" from the days of slavery. (Claude Allen, a black man, resigned as President Bush's senior domestic policy advisor in early February. He was arrested on March 9 for theft of items from a Target and other stores.)

What is the gist of Kaplan's nasty and condescending article ("Claude Allen's life sentence," 3/15/06)? Kaplan surmises that Mr. Allen's "compromises" and "cognitive dissonance" as a conservative black male may have taken a "psychological toll" on him. She then questions if this caused Allen to "finally crack under the pressure."

It doesn't get much more hostile and arrogant than this, folks. Writes Kaplan (emphasis mine),

Click here for instructions on running Gaggle daily on your own site. There's also an archive of previous toons available here.

Without their own poll with which to batter President Bush, last Friday the NBC Nightly News led with how “the latest Associated Press poll has the President's job approval at 37 percent” as anchor Brian Williams pointed how “that matches President Clinton at the lowest point in his presidency.” (NewsBusters item with details.) But NBC caught up Wednesday night with the other networks, and though its new NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey found the exact same 37 percent presidential approval rating -- so no fresh news -- Williams nonetheless led with the poll number. Bringing aboard Tim Russert, Williams prompted him: “Tim, let's start with that all-important benchmark for Presidents, the approval rating." Russert outlined: "It is not good news for President Bush, Brian. Approve: 37 percent. Disapprove of his job: 58 percent. And look at this Brian, 'direction of the country.' Only one in four [26 percent] Americans say the country is in the right direction; wrong track, 62 percent.”

Russert proceeded to highlight how “Democrats will take great joy in” the finding that 50 percent want Democrats to control Congress, “a 13 point bulge” over the 37 percent who prefer Republicans. “Analysts, of both political parties,” Russert stressed, “say with that kind of number if the election was held today they [Democrats] could re-capture the House and Senate.” But, Russert noted, “inside the poll, voters still say they prefer Republicans to manage the war in Iraq and to deal with homeland security.” (Transcript follows.)

For those of you that are unfamiliar, “Boston Legal” is an Emmy-winning television program broadcast by ABC on Tuesdays. In its most recent episode, one of the key attorneys, Alan Shore – played by James Spader – raised various issues facing our nation in his closing arguments (video link to follow). His monologue included references to weapons of mass destruction, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, terrorist surveillance, you name it.

Spader began:

When the weapons of mass destruction thing turned out not to be true, I expected the American people to rise up. They didn’t.