Wow. This can't really be all we have now that SNL has "shamed" the media into digging into Obama's past, can it? I did worse running for student body president in Junior High. Guess we'll have to wait for some real dirt to be manufactured.

I just read Spivak's piece, and I didn't see anything that constituted "dirt," or "ripping into" Obama.

Mostly it was about Spivak - cashing in on the fact that he knew Obama before he was "famous."

I read the story, as I try to read all stories to learn more about the candidates and I was underwhelmed. I get that the press is now in a frenzy to dig up the dirt on Obama so they wont be accused (fairly or unfairly) of influencing the primary by being biased against Clinton, but seriously. A lot of these stories don't offer much (don't offer anything really). Spivak's story for example, confirmed that Obama was extremely ambitious (suprise?), outsmarted his competitors, at times made questionable political decisions (challenging Bobby Rush and the Tillman endorsement) and that even some of his past enemies now support him and are willing to vote for him. So in other words, he is a politician who has made mistakes, but ultimately, people still respect him. Thanks for the newsflash.

Your headline says, "The Alt-Weeklies Rip Into Obama", but it was really just ONE Alt-weekly?

JL, I noticed that, too. Let it never be said that the boys and girls at Mother Jones are strangers to a sensational headline. I know Stein will usually acknowledge it, but don't know about Harkinson.

"As long as people will accept crap, it will be financially profitable to dispense it."

~ Dick Cavett

BS headlines are an insult to thinking people that actually read.

Josh (and recently) JS should be ashamed.

I have lost respect for their honesty - what is wrong with an honest story with an honest headline?

Now THAT would be fearless journalism.

Maybe someday we can get back to it?

The story was printed in the print editions of the Houston Press and the Dallas Observer, and featured as the top story on the national website of Village Voice Media, which is by far the largest alt-weekly chain in the country, with 16 papers. That it made top story for VVM also means it's featured on the front page of the websites every VVM paper. So I think the plural is fair in this case, unless you consider VVM to be an "alt-weekly" instead of a chain of "alt-weeklies."
None of this is to say, however, that I am not guilty of writing the occasional sensationalistic headline.

Got it. But why, Josh, why do you do it?

It's not like I'm thinking, "OK, now I'm going to write a sensationalist headline." It's usually a case of dashing something off in a hurry. You want something accurate that also captures people's interest, but really doing that well takes serious thought. (headlines in the print magazine, for example, are worked over in email strings that go on for days). So, when you are doing it in two minutes, sometimes you come out with something that doesn't really capture what you want to say. I wish headlines weren't necessary. As a reporter, and not an editor, I'm usually not involved in writing them (which suits me just fine), but that's not the case on the blog.

"dashing something off in a hurry"

That is no excuse.

Slow down, get it right or it will get you wrong.

All journalism is done in a hurry - it is the nature of the beast.

Poor journalism is never excused by being first. (re: Dewey wins)

People have to trust you and your words, they are how you make a living. Don't insult your talent and skills by demeaning your work (titles and all) by having to make excuses like "I was in a hurry".

You are better than that.