The News That Fits

Spent a couple of minutes this evening with Paper.li, creating a paper that I have dubbed Eclectica: News That Fits. So far it’s built only on my Twitter account (@wjreynolds); we’ll see what transpires into the future.

The following, I think, is intended to appear among all the clutter at the left of this column. I’m after thinking that more clutter is not what the left side of this page needs, but I was curious to see how it looked, so here it is:

The News That Fits is, of course, a play on The New York Times’s motto, “All the News That’s Fit to Print.” But for me it goes back to my adolescence and a Mad magazine parody (I think. Maybe it was Cracked; maybe National Lampoon—it’s been a few months), with a newspaper proudly displaying the motto “All the News That Fits, We Print.” Under current circumstances it seemed, well, fitting.

Give Eclectica: News That Fits a once-over, if you’re so inclined. Pointers from veteran Paper.li users is always appreciated. As are anonymous cash donations, but I hold out scant hope.

---

And Where Was the News?

Like millions of Americans (I presume), I was in front of the television set late last night awaiting the president's comments on the death of Osama bin Laden. After a certain amount of channel surfing, in which we saw a lot of talking heads all saying pretty much the same things, we ended up on CBS.

As I waited for the president, I also had Twitter running on my phone. Tellingly, it was Twitter that first brought me the news of bin Laden's demise. (Actually, it was my wife calling down from upstairs shortly before 10:00 p.m. CDT that a friend of our son had just texted him the news, prompting me to check Twitter. It would be several minutes before my e-mail started popping with news alerts from various sources.) By and by, tweets began to appear describing scenes of celebrating crowds that had gathered in front of the White House, cheering, chanting, and singing the national anthem.

And then CBS's White House bloke interrupts himself to say that his producer had just stepped outside and reported back that crowds had gathered, cheering, chanting, etc.

And my thought was, Where was the news?

Here we have a guy standing in front of a sign saying CBS News White House, and reporting that his producer ran outside to see what was going on. But where were the pictures? It seems to me that even two or three years ago, the reporter would have interrupted himself to throw to another reporter out on Pennsylvania Avenue, showing us the cheering, chanting, singing crowds. But that costs money, I suppose, so instead we have a talking head telling us what is going on outside the building.

I might as well have been listening on the radio.

Or reading it on Twitter.

---

If You Can't Trust 'em on the Small Things...

So I end up at CBSNews.com, by way of clicking a link on Google News. The subject in question is "Filming the Dark Knight," which is all well and good. But then I click on the "Related" link, The Dark Knight, and thence to the timeline, "Caped Crusader Chronology."

And the first thing I note is that the timeline, when I get there, is in fact titled "Cape Crusader Chronology." Not "caped." This on both the page itself and in the title bar. It bodes not well. But I plunge on.

I'm basically okay for the first couple of decades. Not bothering to go and check dates and so on; things seem as right as they need to be. Of course, the timeline perpetuates the old fiction that young Bob Kane one day sat down and created Batman all by his lonesome, but of course that canard is so well integrated into the mythos that it's nearly impossible to give poor old Bill Finger his due as virtual co-creator of the character.

But when I get to May 1964, I about lose it:

Batman turns 25 and Kane considers killing off the character due to a drop in sales. Instead, the Dark Knight gets a "New Look" in Detective Comics # 327. The makeover by editor Julius Schwartz includes an updated Batmobile and the addition of the yellow ellipse behind the costume's Bat-insignia.

Kane considers killing him off? I think it's been pretty well documented that certainly by 1964 Kane's involvement with the character consisted primarily of cashing his royalty checks. Somewhere--I think in the excellent book Men of Tomorrow by Gerard Jones--there's an anecdote of a kid showing Kane the comic book that introduced the "new look" Batman (and also the first Batman book that did not include the "Bob Kane" signature) and noting Kane's surprise at both the new design and his missing byline. So I hardly think Kane considered pulling the plug on the character--or ever would consider killing the golden goose--or had any legal standing to do so if it did enter his head.

Skeptism sensors activated!

Next, it's a little odd that the "chronology" goes from May 1964 to May 1966 to January 12, 1966, and then to 1966. Ordinarily I expect a "chronology" to be you know, chronological, and the last time I looked May 1966 should come after January 12 1966. And why is 1966 hanging there all alone? The reference is to the movie Batman, with Adam West and Burt Ward, and you'd think that an organization with the resources of CBS News might have been able to dig up the release date. (October 5, if you're interested.)

Forging ahead, I come to Feb. - June 1986, and read:

Frank Miller's "Batman: The Dark Knight Returns" hits shelves, featuring an aged Batman of the future. It is considered a pioneer of the comic book industry and reinforces the darker, modern Batman.

No objection...except one wonders how The Dark Knight Returns can be a "pioneer" of a 50-year-old industry...

And so on. A few more minor quibbles--why not give the release dates, or at least the months, for Batman Returns, Batman: Gotham Knight, and The Dark Knight? But by then I've largely lost interest in the "chonology," having determined that CBS News decided it wasn't worth taking much pains with, which causes me to wonder why I should care either.

But one always does wonder: If a news organization is sloppy with small, unimportant details, what makes me think they're any more conscientious or accurate with the big, important stories?