Morning Roundup: Readers Rule, Media Drools, Partisan Fools?

Hi! Let me begin this post by pestering the partisans.

OK, OK, maybe that's not such a good idea, tempting as it may be. (I'm all for inviting the ire of partisans, mind you – just not gratuitously.) Besides, as the New York Times tells us today, offering up information that contradicts the worldview of partisans on both sides might actually be doing them a favor. Why? I'll leave it to Benedict Carey:

Using M.R.I. scanners, neuroscientists have now tracked what happens in the politically partisan brain when it tries to digest damning facts about favored candidates or criticisms of them. The process is almost entirely emotional and unconscious, the researchers report, and there are flares of activity in the brain's pleasure centers when unwelcome information is being rejected.

I'll leave it to someone else to figure out whether this rejection/pleasure calculus means that serious, rational political discourse between opposing partisans is essentially doomed. In the meantime, I'll be weeping in the corner.

In other news, Editor & Publisher brings word that the 101,000-circulation Wisconsin State Journal in Madison has decided to let readers decide what's news. "Under the 'Reader's Choice' heading, we'll offer four or five story choices varying day to day from local to national, entertainment to sports," Managing Editor Tim Kelley wrote Saturday, notes Joe Strupp. "You'll be able to see immediately how your choice stacks up against others, and check back later for final results."

He added: "Critics may resist what they see as a popularity contest undermining traditional news judgment. But we aren't too worried that you'll be scribbling up our first draft of history with Paris Hilton's daily exploits. Our unscientific poll is just another way for you to tell us what you find to be the most important, interesting or vital information of the day."

Kelley's right – no one wants to spend their time on Paris Hilton these days. Brangelina on the other hand…

Lastly in our quick morning roundup comes Dan Kennedy, who smells a swift boating:

President Bush's top two political advisers said on Friday that they intend to conduct the 2006 congressional campaign on the basis of an appalling lie about the Democrats. Will the media call them on it? Or are they too hidebound by the traditional rules of objectivity to get beyond their characteristic "on the one hand/on the other hand" style of coverage?

I'm all for fair, neutral coverage of politics. But it also has to be tough-minded. So when White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove and Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman claim -- falsely -- that Democrats oppose efforts to spy on Al Qaeda, that lie needs to be pointed out.