tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2458161926216714198.post2856742937560900877..comments2023-10-17T05:18:36.318-07:00Comments on <i>Watchdogs and Lapdogs</i>: The Predictability in Presidential Post-Debate AnalysisM. Deryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09642995185292648416noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2458161926216714198.post-54341133592406463492008-10-16T08:59:00.000-07:002008-10-16T08:59:00.000-07:00P.S. SHORTER is better. Flensing off those first t...P.S. SHORTER is better. Flensing off those first two grafs would have trimmed this down to fighting weight.M. Deryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09642995185292648416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2458161926216714198.post-10749236210999435352008-10-16T08:58:00.000-07:002008-10-16T08:58:00.000-07:00Funny, not-safe-for-work kicker. But this thing sp...Funny, not-safe-for-work kicker. But this thing sprawls around, barking its shins and trying to get its bearings, for two grafs before it finds its focus. Most readers would be off into the wild blue yonder by then. Concision, man, concision. The Blizter graf is where this post truly begins. Write, then edit; a gimlet-eyed re-read would have inspired you to lop off the first two grafs' worth of throat-cleared, I suspect. Also, you've got a great insight here, expressed with real verve and wiseass wit, but you barely nibble around the edges. Okay, so the networks wheel out partisan hacks who ventriloquize their bosses (and political bases). The bigger question is: WHY? Why does this pass for Deep Insight, in network news eyes? THAT's the question to answer. Combing for essays or studies of this question, on mediacrit or political websites, might have turned up an answer---or answers---to this fascinating question. Also, not sure the first-person is needed, here. Blogstyle is off-the-cuff and in-your-face in many (though not all) instances, but reader needs to CARE that you're "pissed." Why does that matter, here?M. Deryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09642995185292648416noreply@blogger.com