Rarely have the conventions of television journalism been so effectively skewered as by Charlie Brooker of BBC 4 in a two-minute piece that illustrates all of them.[1]  --  One viewer commented:  "This is quite possibly the funniest -- and dead true -- send-ups of the news media I've ever seen.  I'd never heard the name 'Charlie Brooker' before now (me being in the U.S.), but I realized after I watched the clip that I'd SEEN him before, and was amused at his quippy intelligence in the past. . . . Maybe he's done something better, but how could he have done something with as much international reach?  BRAVO!" ...

Satan, it appears, has written a letter to Pat Robertson regarding his recent remarks on the earthquake in Haiti.  --  Somehow Lily Coyle of Minneapolis got hold of a copy and published it Thursday in the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune.[1] ...

Henry Giroux, the celebrated guru of critical pedagogy, should go back to school.  --  Consider these remarks from a 2007 interview:  "I mean I think the thing about Paulo that has never failed to not move me was the extraordinarily richness and originality of his interventions.  It's one thing to read his work, as, you know, we all did, and to recognize the obvious -- I mean, I mean, an assemblage of ongoing brilliant insights.  But to be around him and to -- there was a spontaneity coupled with a humility unlike I must say anything I have ever seen among a major intellectual."  --  Consider what Giroux accomplishes in only three sentences.  --  In the first sentence, a true gem, not only is Giroux redundant ("I mean I think"), verbose (the words "I mean I think the thing about" are entirely unnecessary), ungrammatical ("the extraordinarily richness"), and pretentiously Frenchifying ("his interventions"), he also manages to say precisely the opposite of what he means:  intending to comment about something in Freire that has never failed to move him, he instead says it has "never failed not to move" him!  --  The next sentence is not quite so egregious, merely exhibiting repetition ("I mean, I mean") and flawed diction (if "insights" are "ongoing," they constitute "vision"; "assemblage" should only be used for concrete objects).  --  But Giroux's third sentence concludes with a jewel of linguistic ineptitude:  "among a major intellectual."  --  Among requires at least three individuals; ordinary mortals sometimes use it instead of between, which requires two; but to use among with a noun in the singular requires genius.  --  What's striking in the video is that Giroux never betrays the slightest awareness that he is massacring the language.  --   O tempora o mores! ...