The New York Times belittles the concerns of TiVo users:

FALSE ALARM There was a short panic in blogland this week after someone wrote to the keeper of the PVRBlog to warn that his TiVo box had informed him that an episode of “The Simpsons” that he wanted to save was “flagged” by copy protection software — the episode would self-destruct at a certain date.

Reporters from CNET and elsewhere quickly determined that the flag was just a software bug, but some TiVo devotees remain convinced that they may soon be unable to save their favorite shows. Sure, it was just a bug, writes Matt Haughey of the PVRBlog, but it “demonstrates what could very well happen in the near future with TiVos and other sorts of P.V.R. devices.” Once the ire is worked up, it’s hard to just let it go.

The Times writer totally misses the point. The “bug” revealed a secret: that the TiVo box includes code designed to take control of recorded programs away from the user.

The “bug” was a programming accident. The anti-user capability it revealed is no accident, but a deliberate feature of the TiVo software, programmed at some considerable expense and effort. It was put in there to be used. You may rest assured, it will be used. Personally, I think that’s worth getting “worked up” over.

New York Times columnist Frank Rich:

Once Toto parts the curtain, the Wizard of Oz can never be the wizard again. He is forever Professor Marvel, blowhard and snake-oil salesman. Hurricane Katrina, which is likely to endure in the American psyche as long as L. Frank Baum’s mythic tornado, has similarly unmasked George W. Bush.

The worst storm in our history proved perfect for exposing this president because in one big blast it illuminated all his failings: the rampant cronyism, the empty sloganeering of “compassionate conservatism,” the lack of concern for the “underprivileged” his mother condescended to at the Astrodome, the reckless lack of planning for all government operations except tax cuts, the use of spin and photo-ops to camouflage failure and to substitute for action.

From Monday, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert:

The president is Lucy, and he’s holding a football. We’re Charlie Brown.

…

The country has put its faith in Mr. Bush many times before, and come up empty. It may be cynical, but my guess is that if we believe him again this time, we’re going to end up on our collective keisters, just like Charlie Brown, who could never stop himself from kicking mightily at empty space, which was all that was left each time Lucy snatched the ball away.

…

Not only was he proposing a Gulf Coast Marshall Plan, but he was declaring, in words that made his conservative followers gasp, that poverty in the U.S. “has roots in a history of racial discrimination which cut off generations from the opportunity of America.”

If you were listening to the radio, you might have thought you were hearing the ghost of Lyndon Johnson. “We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action,” said Mr. Bush.

He was being Lucy again, enticing us with the football. But before we commence kicking the air, consider the facts.

This president has had zero interest in attacking poverty, and the result has been an increase in poverty in the U.S., the richest country in the world, in each of the last four years. Instead of attacking poverty, the Bush administration has attacked the safety net and has stubbornly refused to stop the decline in the value of the minimum wage on his watch.

You can believe that he’s suddenly worried about poor people if you want to. What is more likely is that his reference to racism and poverty was just another opportunistic Karl Rove moment, never to be acted upon.

Charlie Brown’s sister, Sally, once asked how often someone could be fooled with the same trick. She answered her own question: “Pretty often, huh?”

Pretty often, yeah. But not this time.

Once upon a time, I wanted to become a journalist. One of my role models was Edward R. Murrow, a CBS reporter whose live radio reports from wartime London brought the early days of World War II home to Americans. His television shows in the 1950s helped shape the nature of broadcast journalism. He set the bar high.

Murrow made a career of confronting liars and exposing lies. His career is the stuff of legend. One of the most legendary — and most inspiring — episodes was his 1953 confrontation with Senator Joe McCarthy, the man for whom McCarthyism was named.

So, I’m looking forward to seeing George Clooney’s new movie, Good Night and Good Luck. It won’t be in theaters until October 7, and I’m champing at the bit.

David Carr of the New York Times has a preview:

“Good Night” is about journalism, not as a subject of parody, but of inquiry. With various reporters and news anchors splashing into fetid waters to save victims of Hurricane Katrina, “Good Night” serves as a reminder that it may take a different kind of journalistic courage, a willingness to risk career and more, to bring government to account. At a time when the news media are being denied access to everything from pictures of imprisoned foreign nationals to critical government security documents, Mr. Clooney, without pressing the analogy, has made a movie that reminds that government needs a vigorous, even oppositional press to find its best nature.

Like Murrow’s reports, the $8 million film, distributed by Warner Independent Pictures, uses McCarthy’s own words to demonstrate that his stated effort to save the United States from Communist infiltration was itself a far more insidious threat.…

In “Good Night,” David Strathairn renders Murrow as a reluctant hero, and a twitchy, dark one at that. His Murrow, with the fatalism of Eeyore, is a journalist who reflexively expects the worst, but responds by doing his best, steeling those around him even as McCarthy’s gun sights are trained on his forehead.

In the movie, McCarthy is shown only in archival footage. Director Clooney thought no actor could do him justice. Modern audiences who have never seen this man, once one of the most powerful men in the U.S. government, are in for a shock.

Mr. Clooney has an odd relationship with the press — he reveres its role, but has been a victim of some of its less noble reflexes.…

“In this and all the rest of journalism, I think the issues are complicated,” he said. “I don’t think that there are truly bad guys or truly good guys.… There is always a split in these things, but hopefully the need for entertainment does not push news off the screen.”

Murrow said as much in a famous speech he gave at the Radio-Television News Directors Association annual meeting in 1958. Part of the speech, a reminder that television should and could produce important journalism, closes the film:

“To those who say people wouldn’t look; they wouldn’t be interested; they’re too complacent, indifferent and insulated, I can only reply: there is, in one reporter’s opinion, considerable evidence against that contention. But even if they are right, what have they got to lose?

“Because if they are right, and this instrument is good for nothing but to entertain, amuse and insulate, then the tube is flickering now and we will soon see that the whole struggle is lost.

“This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise, it is merely wires and lights in a box.”

The movie’s trailer is available, in several formats, here.

They turned on the power last week in parts of New Orleans. They used it to light Jackson Square with a garish light, as a backdrop for a televised speech by George W. Bush. Many observers thought it looked like something from Disneyland.

Bush promised to “do what it takes” to rebuild the areas devastated by Hurricane Katrina:

Throughout the area hit by the hurricane, we will do what it takes. We will stay as long as it takes to help citizens rebuild their communities and their lives. And all who question the future of the Crescent City need to know: There is no way to imagine America without New Orleans, and this great city will rise again.

The next day, he ruled out taxes to pay for the reconstruction.

The New Orleans of the future, he promised, would be better than the city that was destroyed:

When communities are rebuilt, they must be even better and stronger than before the storm.

Better how? Well, one vision of Neo Orleans calls for “fewer poor people.” And maybe we could replace all those jazz musicians with animatronic musical bears from Disneyland.

A couple hours after Bush finished his speech, electrical power to the city was shut off again. That’s show biz.

Some stuff is so complicated that only comedians truly understand it. On The Daily Show, Jon Stewart discussed the financing of the Bush recovery plan for Hurricane Katrina with “Daily Show Chief Fiscal Policy Analyst” Rob Corddry:

Corddry: Everything the president is doing is perfectly in keeping with the conservative ideal of limited government.

Stewart: How is what the president is doing limited government?

Corddry: This president believes government should be limited not in size, Jon, but in effectiveness. Now in terms of effectiveness, this is the most limited administration we’ve ever had.

Stewart: Rob, let’s stay with the financial part of this. How is his record spending conservative?

Corddry: Because it’s paid for through supply-side economics. It’s a faith-based accounting approach.

Stewart: Supply-side economics? How does that even apply to this?

Corddry: Wow — sounds like someone’s unfamiliar with the work of Milton Friedman and the Chicago School.

Simply put, Jon, supply-side economics is when a president cuts taxes. This makes people happy, and him popular. The tax cuts deprive the government of money, and after eight years the deficit balloons to astronomical size.

Then, with the economy in tatters, a Democrat is elected. He has to cut the deficit by raising taxes, making people unhappy, and him unpopular, perfectly setting up the next election, where a Republican uses the Democrats’ tax hike against them to win back the White House and start the cycle all over again.

Four men won Nobel Prizes for that, Jon.