So let's take care of the big, furry, farting, beer-guzzling elephant in the room: Is Ted simply a re-hash of Family Guy?
Social media are terrific innovations that add great value to our lives. But they also serve as a daily diary of our thoughts and connections with each other. We tend to think of them as virtual, but they are very real.
The photo of the New York Pride parade in this week's Wall Street Journal means a lot. All those people who came across it spread across the section's front page saw gay men and women who probably didn't look too different from the folks in the next cubicle.
In this week's Nature we are told that "tiny molecules called microRNAs are tearing apart traditional ideas about the animal family tree" and that molecular biologist Kevin Peterson's work "changes everything about our understanding of mammal evolution."
Let's face it: I was handpicked from obscurity to become the face of television's new talk/variety show IFC's Comedy Bang! Bang! There is a lot of pressure on me. What else to do but to turn to talk shows of yore for inspiration?
The centerpiece of this week's double issue of Huffington is the latest installment of reporter David Wood's inquiry into the costs of America's wars, told in the voices of those who will continue to fight them for decades to come.
President Obama says his White House would never leak really important secrets -- and anyway wasn't the press just doing its job of keeping us informed?
How important is it to control your brand's message online? Just look at McDonald's in Canada's "Our Foods. Your Questions" website, which pulled back the curtain to address one customer's question about why their food looks so good in ads, and not so good in real life.
I am sending a letter to The Daily Beast/Newsweek, respectfully saying "Thanks, but no thanks" for putting me on the Digital Power Index, and asking them to replace me with a woman I respect in my field who I think is an awesome evangelist, Deanna Zandt.
There's been a scuttle of Congressional activity surrounding what one paper purported "may be one of the most important stories ever ignored by the media."
Maraniss's book traces Obama's childhood, teenage years and his twenties with meticulous detail and exceptional insight. He interviewed hundreds of people who knew Obama at this early stage of his life.
The Court's decision has resulted in a steady flow of excited, congratulatory proclamations from those who support health care reform. I wish the story was as uniformly positive as it seems.
The two big cable "news" outlets were so intent on being fast that they were totally wrong. The reporters, producers, on-air "talent," nobody could be bothered to actually read through the decision before broadcasting their stupidity to the world.
I have concluded that reverse psychology is the president's best -- nay, only -- possible strategy going forward. Only with this tool can he harness the twin powers of Republican resentment and Democratic ambivalence in a single stroke.
The most important thing about today's Supreme Court health care decision is the victory for the millions of Americans who will live longer, happier, healthier lives because of the new health care law.
Expressing opinion in journalism isn't a fault in itself. But the veiling of that opinion behind a supposedly right vs. wrong debate of ever-increasing decibels, over-simplifications and extreme biases is.
Today, in a long and complicated ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act. This is an important victory for millions of uninsured people in our country and ultimately a triumph of the common good.
Let's face it. The United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio 20) was a flop -- at least the part that involved negotiations amongst governments.
Who can be stoic, if not a journalist? You would think in Afghanistan people would be used to it. Another attack. Another body. No, this is not something anybody gets used to.