Note to reporters on the penis-bomb

The penis-bomb fizzle in Detroit (there's a phrase I never imagined writing!) points up the utter failure of U.S. intelligence agencies. Abdulmutallab bought his ticket with cash and didn't check a bag! His own father had reported him directly to the Nigerian embassy. Our Nigerian embassy.

Systems fail, though. All systems.

What I'd like to see as follow-up to this good factual story from the New York Times is a way for me to assess whether this was a rare failure due to imperfection or a symptom of systemic failure. That requires numbers:

• How many reports are the intelligence agencies sharing?
• What proportion lead to actions (beyond entry into a database that "serves as holding area for cases that need more research")? And, no, 1700 visas revoked in eight years doesn't seem like a lot to me.
  
• What proportion of similar fact patterns to this attack elicit a no-fly order? A pat-down order? Some other protective act, where here there was none?

Who's going to report that story?

Update: An attempt at context, though I want details on the firehose intel is drinking from, and Ackerman ignores the behavioral markers - cash and no carry-on.

Update (1/9/10): Hey, my Google alert tells me the Wall Street Journal has linked to me. With such a pithy title, too, espethially if you lithp!

Blame the Republican

The AP says that "partisan wrangling" is holding up a wilderness bill. In fact, Republican Tom Coburn is the only one wrangling. He does this all the time. He is well known on both sides of the aisle for his willingness to stand alone in the way of anything his stony little cinder of a brain doesn't like.

Why do we have reporters if they can't keep up with context?

Update (1/11): AP continues to ignore Coburn's career-long obstructionism. No matter, the bill passed overwhelmingly.

Media passive voice

An iron-clad rule of American media: Never, never, ever take responsibility for your impact on the coverage that you yourselves do:

Sen. Joe Biden faces a paradox: He offers the most unfiltered contact with the media of any of the big four. But he's the least likely to be covered.

Rachel Streitfeld at least "analyzes" the symptoms of the media's headlong rush to provide 24-hour Sarah Network News. What she doesn't do is any real analysis of why. Maybe it would be too depressing:

• Entertainment values predominate in all spheres of media. This means that a pretty woman who doesn't have the depth to recognize "Bush Doctrine" gets more coverage than an older man who happens to have heavyweight Senate experience.
• The excitement of the chase is the most important thrill factor of journalists.
• Journalists care more about hype and being seen than anything else. Well, many of them, especially those on TV.

Most reporters started out wanting to report news. But most of them now report gossip, illustrate it, and call it news. And then they go and drink together and congratulate themselves about how tough-minded they are.

Or at least that's what it looks like. Maybe Streitfeld could make some calls and report a story.

Weird and senseless

So. This plane all liveried up as a McCain * Palin plane (where's the American flag!) is a leased charter to carry reporters. The reporter pay the campaign for their seats on it.

The story, though, is the shiny new plane, with generous and gratuitous mention of McCain's branding for the plane he and Sarah will actually fly on. (Note to Obama campaign: Hint, hint.)

The establishment loves to cover itself and its new toys.

Update (9/6): I misinterpreted the CNN story I linked to. It was only Thursday that reporters had this plane to themselves. It apparently will be Sarah Palin's new plane for the duration of the campaign. She didn't get it on eBay, by the way. (h/t BarbinMD on Kos)

News reporters, come on down

Do news reporters ego-surf? Do they Google themselves like the rest of us? Or are they jaded to having their names in print? Nope, nothing like that - they just couldn't possibly find a low-volume blog.

I make a habit of keywording their names, but they get far too many hits to come here. The question is how they get feedback from their readers. Occasionally, there's a controversy, and their defensiveness as a rule seems complete. Their outlets' ombudsmen, if they have them, exist mainly to defend them - or, now and then, to softly critique them.

I've seen a reporter or two show up on Editor and Publisher to defend themselves. But mainly, they seem almost as insulated from public dissatisfaction as Duhbya himself.