My Hero

Anita Esterday versus the Freak Show:

“You people are really nuts,” she told a reporter during a phone interview. “There’s kids dying in the war, the price of oil right now — there’s better things in this world to be thinking about than who served Hillary Clinton at Maid-Rite and who got a tip and who didn’t get a tip.”

That this quote came at the very end of the story rather than the beginning speaks volumes. There's just no shame. I think most campaign reporters would rather spend an hour being waterboarded than spend it trying to understand the important questions facing the country.

Comments

Best MSM-bashing quote by a local EVER!

But her account of the Clinton campaign trying to bribe her not to talk with $20 is priceless.

Posted by bob | November 9, 2007 2:08 PM

However, my nominee for hero is this guy:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004669.php

Posted by bob | November 9, 2007 2:10 PM

I think most campaign reporters would rather spend an hour being waterboarded than spend it trying to understand the important questions facing the country.

What, like whether Arenas is fucked? People, quite reasonably, look for some insight into the sort of person that the candidate might be. Tipping, in real life and as regards real people, is often taken to be a tell about such things. It may not be very useful, but it's not clear that "Clinton said seemingly contradictory things...oh, wait, she's pretty ambiguous in both instances" is all that useful, either. And while I'm not sure what policy implications there would be to an HRC who had savagely beat the child Chelsea with a coathanger repeatedly, I think you'd probably want to hear about it and that it might influence your vote.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | November 9, 2007 2:11 PM

I didn't get down to see the $20 bribe. I got stuck on this:

"Esterday, speaking to NPR from home later Thursday, said the Clinton campaign staffer who visited the diner apologized to her and said a $100 tip was left on a credit card the day of Clinton's visit. Esterday said the staff member said the money was meant to be shared. "I explained to her that our credit card machine, you know, doesn't add on the tip," Esterday said. "And she said, 'Well, then, they left a $100 bill there.' And I said, 'Well, it didn't get divided up amongst us, because I had gotten nothing.' "She just said, 'Well, there was one left,'" Esterday said. "She just kept repeating, 'There was one left.'"

Posted by Keith | November 9, 2007 2:21 PM

A few days ago Katherine Seelye of the NY Times was on the paper's Web chat and was asked about the press's obsessive horse-race coverage to the exclusion of the policy merits of each candidate. She said almost verbatim that the reporters personally preferred the inside-high-school stuff ("we can't help it") and, besides, "it's easier!" They just don't give two shits about giving the public any useful information and at this point aren't shy about telling us that either. Our ruling media class at work......

I don't like HRC on a policy level compared to Obama and especially Edwards, but let's beat her on the merits (you know, being wrong on Iraq and hawkish on Iran) and not on whether she tips well enough, laughs appropriately, or responds "correctly" to gotcha bullshit questions lobbed by Russert. Because let's get real. Our MSM is kneecapping HRC right now, but if she goes they have narratives ready for Edwards ("Breck Girl") and Obama ("Osama - oops, sorry, hee, hee") after her. Regardless of which candidate we like, let's be vocal like the woman in MY's story link and say enough's enough.

Posted by scott | November 9, 2007 2:22 PM

scott beats me to the punch: why do reporters do this? because it's easier.

now, if a publisher started firing people for spending their time entertaining themselves with stupid twaddle, then maybe we'd see a disincentive to doing the easier thing, but who among us resists that temptation otherwise?

Posted by howard | November 9, 2007 2:34 PM

Aside from the business of cranking out the news, take a look at the journalism "schools". Students and faculty are both pretty close to the dregs of academia.

Posted by sglover | November 9, 2007 3:04 PM

People, quite reasonably, look for some insight into the sort of person that the candidate might be.

Like whether or not George W. Bush would be a great guy to have a beer with? As if that really has had anything to do with what he's done as President.

Maybe you ought to consider the implications of your claim before asserting how reasonable it is.

Posted by David W. | November 9, 2007 3:13 PM

OK this is nuts. You may remember that Hillary actually did forget to tip once in the 2000 Senate race. It was a big (read minor) deal, and Hillary ended up giving the stiffed waitress a $50 US Savings Bond and an apology.

Fast forward to 2007. The Clinton campaign leaves a $100 tip for a $157 bill. And they get hit on this? This is pure crap. I'm sure a lot of time I leave a tip with the cashier that doesn't get spread out evenly among the wait staff. That's the reaturant's problem, and it does not reflect on me AT ALL.

Posted by PDX Pete | November 9, 2007 3:18 PM

Maybe Hillary is like Mr. Pink and philosophically doesn't believe in tipping?

But seriously, do millionaire candidates like Hillary actually do the paying or does one of her staffers? I do remember Bush pere not knowing what the grociery store checkout line scanning device was. Nice...

Posted by Peter K. | November 9, 2007 3:22 PM

Just to be fair to Bush pere, the scanning device was actually in some way new and unique, and in context he isn't a jackass at all (at least in that instance). I forget the specifics, though.

Posted by Zephyrus | November 9, 2007 3:52 PM

ok, here's my question: as a civilian I leave 20%, less for bad service.

what does Miss Manners say for political operatives?

that $100 works out as a 64% tip--is this Clinton campaign standard? what kind of signal is it meant to send? does Hillary overtip breakfast waitresses? does she undertip as punishment if her server uses the phrase "tempt" in a dessert-offering context?

so many questions...

Posted by metalpetic | November 9, 2007 4:04 PM

"Just to be fair to Bush pere, the scanning device was actually in some way new and unique, and in context he isn't a jackass at all (at least in that instance). I forget the specifics, though."

Whatever, David Brooks!

Posted by Peter K. | November 9, 2007 4:29 PM

Norman Mailer said it best about journalists years ago: "The quintessential moronic animus of the journalistic mind." That said- I once dumped a girl because she was a bad tipper. It is one of those things revealing of character.

Posted by Trevor | November 9, 2007 4:57 PM

Please, Matt. Journalists reserve the most telling detail for the kicker. If they put it at the bottom, they assume (wrongly, it seems), that people will read to the bottom, and see the final word as a suggestion that maybe this wasn't a big deal. The real headline for this post should be "Blogger attacks MSM for addressing controversy created by blogosphere."

For once, I'd like to see a blogger take some responsibility for blowing something out of proportion before reflexively blaming the media.

And there's nothing more moronic than the herd-like media-baiting I read in these comments. If any of you had taken the time to listen to David Green's NPR piece yesterday, it was a thoughtful look at people too often used as props by presidential candidates and how they react.

Green himself said this morning he didn't think anything of the detail until bloggers began their predictable ape-shit dance over any shiny object dangled before them in the day's news. Of course, it works for everyone: The conservative blogosphere gets to pile on Hillary, and when David Green or the New York Times make a good faith effort to clear up the record, the liberal blogosphere beats on them to show you can't trust the evil, evil MSM.

Way to go, Matt. You'd justify this Atlantic gig if you went after real media mistakes, and not sincere reports on real people.

Posted by Brian | November 9, 2007 7:56 PM

"Please, Matt. Journalists reserve the most telling detail for the kicker."

Please, Brian. Have you ever read a newspaper story? They are designed so that the least important information comes at the end, where it can be chopped off if a story has to be made to fit the news hole. Reporters do not stick great quotes where editors can jettison them quickly, not of the reporter recognizes a great quote for what it is.

"Aside from the business of cranking out the news, take a look at the journalism 'schools'. Students and faculty are both pretty close to the dregs of academia."

Whoever said that -- yes, you are so right. I spent some time at Columbia J-School in the 80s, and it was a travesty. Michael Lewis nailed the place in a piece he did for TNR around '90 or so.

Posted by Kyle | November 9, 2007 10:49 PM

"Just to be fair to Bush pere, the scanning device was actually in some way new and unique, and in context he isn't a jackass at all (at least in that instance). I forget the specifics, though."

Just going on memory (and not wanting to spend the time on research and more than willing to stand corrected), I can say with "absolute" certainty that you are not correct in this description of the situation. Scanners were ubiquitous at this point and it was quite obvious that Bush Sr had not been to a grocery store in a long time (ever, I'd venture).

Posted by Rihilism | November 10, 2007 7:30 AM

http://www.snopes.com/history/american/bushscan.asp

Posted by Barbar | November 10, 2007 8:18 AM

I think most campaign reporters would rather spend an hour being waterboarded than spend it trying to understand the important questions facing the country.

This is an empirical question. Let's get to work and find the answer!

Posted by calling all toasters | November 10, 2007 9:49 AM

I see that Andrew is in full hyperventilating Clinton-hysteria mode - reading his blog gives the impression that this tip thing is a major campaign issue.

Posted by Musa | November 10, 2007 12:12 PM

Musa, Andrew's point is not that she didn't tip, but that she -the campaign, whatever - lied about it immediately. It's the lying. I think he agrees that it's a small thing, but indicative of a bigger thing. If you care about lying, anyway.

Posted by Phoebe | November 10, 2007 2:31 PM

"Posted by Barbar"

I can say with "absolute" certainty, I stand corrected.

Posted by Rihilism | November 10, 2007 4:41 PM

"Please, Brian. Have you ever read a newspaper story? They are designed so that the least important information comes at the end, where it can be chopped off if a story has to be made to fit the news hole. Reporters do not stick great quotes where editors can jettison them quickly, not of the reporter recognizes a great quote for what it is."

Sorry, Kyle, but that only applies to the Associated Press, which supplies papers around the country. Most editors want good quotes at the beginning and the end of a story. And oftentimes, the final quote is the one that summarizes the thrust of the piece. When the New York Times puts the waitress' quote at the end, it's because it's a summary statement -- something neither you nor Matt seem to understand.

Posted by Brian | November 11, 2007 7:09 AM

islamization scotograph pomphus gyrinus angiotrophic seaweedy barodynamic lerot
http://www.madeleinepeyroux.com/ >Madeleine Peyroux
http://www.apex-support.com/

Posted by Marcus Burke | November 21, 2007 11:03 PM