I am sure the father on “Family Guy” would say “C’mon” when confronted with all the politics covered in newspapers and magazines (old media) and online (new media) that we now see, that in some ways is illustrious, at least for me, for its emptiness. Political writers and editors look on coverage of this, the longest campaign for president in history, as the blood they need to drink to stay alive despite the public’s declining interest in their work.

The coverage is mostly dull. It is not very critical. It plays into the hands of the political wonks who revel in using reporters to their advantage. I confess that I read almost nothing about politics. I do not watch the debates, a dubious term for mostly men in dark suits and ties who stand in front of cameras spewing platitudes. Reporters over-analyze every tic and tell delivered by a candidate, especially during those debates.

The machinations of the campaign are boring. I think of the media’s wasted time and effort in the coverage, as if all the current exposure will reveal that one major flaw in a candidate that will spell his or her end. Worse, nothing deters the second rank of candidates in each party – name them quickly, if you can — from quitting. Do they really think they have a chance? I do not. Nor, probably, does the rest of America. Yet these second level candidates slog along slow as mud, trying to raise money, showing up for the debates, holding news conferences, and allowing ego to dominate how they think and act instead of using good sense and leaving the political stage for other climes. But that is too much to expect. The public rarely counts for much in the face of ambitious politicians.

Now there is this from the Project for Excellence in Journalism about coverage of the war in Iraq. The number of stories from Iraq in April, May and June fell from 22% to roughly 15% of all coverage. That is a sad number to contemplate with American troops dying every day. It seems that most of that coverage was about the debate in Washington over the war, and far less about combat, the men fighting in Iraq. Coverage of a war demands war coverage. The major newspapers and their online sites do a commendable job in covering the war. It is television that fails its viewers. I know how difficult it is to have reporters on constant and frequent patrol with troops. The dangers are palpable and well documented. But if we do not show stories of the coalition troops in action, it is impossible to understand the war the men and women are fighting. To understand whether the surge is working, without seeing the surge in action every day, there is no way for anyone to make an informed judgment about its effectiveness. We must be skeptical about the words that flow from the mouths of our generals and our diplomats. After all, they work for the government and do not think independently, at least not out loud. It is far easier for the networks to cover Iraq as a political story, out of Washington and Baghdad. In Washington, there is less danger of anyone being hurt physically when all the reporter does is stand and talk. It gives reporters something to do with their time. We used to call analysis stories thumb suckers. There is far too much of them today when the war and the men and women fighting it demand fuller, better and more frequent coverage. But then I wonder, if there were more stories from the battlefront, where would the networks put them, what with all the features they play disguised as hard news, news you can use, news that they – the networks, broadcast and cable – want you to know about so you can have a successful life.

In the not too distant past in the spirit of tickling my adversaries, I advocated a one-day moratorium for all blogs. That did not go over very well and the attacks against me were furious and mean-spirited. I know that with almost sixty million blogs now in space, a moratorium would never work.

Recently I suggested that all the news organizations treat their Washington bureaus as if they were in a foreign country. I thought by doing that, we, the people might be better served because the obvious symbiosis that rules journalism in Washington might be tougher and thus, more honest. That, notion, also did not fly.

My latest suggestion for the media is that no one, and I mean no one, TV, old media, new media, whatever media you can think of, should cover politics for 24 hours, designed to stop all at the same time no matter what the news cycle. I am willing to bet the house that people will not miss what they did not see or hear. The press should do nothing even as the candidates continue to fill the surrounding political air with their often-suspect personal visions. No sound bites. No made for media photo ops. Nothing political for twenty-four hours. The only coverage I would allow would be that of a disaster or a tragedy beyond the control of anyone in public relations. Think of the quiet. I know I do and look forward to the resulting silence. I can’t wait. Can you?

SECAUCUS, NJ (September 7, 2007) – Panasonic introduced today a 32GB P2 solid-state memory card for its popular line of P2 HD and P2 solid-state camcorders and decks. With the availability of the 32GB P2 card in November, Panasonic will have quadrupled the storage capacity of its solid-state memory card in just this year, providing HD recording time greater than most tape-based and disc-based systems.

The 32GB P2 card, model AJ-P2C032RG, will have a suggested list price of $1,650 and is scheduled for initial deliveries in November. The new 32 P2 card will be offered in addition to the 16GB P2 card that has been shipping since May.

Camcorders equipped with the new 32GB P2 card will offer greater recording capacity than tape-based and disc-based systems, and offer the proven benefits of no-moving-parts reliability and fast IT file-based workflow. With five 32GB P2 cards installed, the AJ-HPX3000 and HPX2000 P2 HD camcorders can record for up to 2.5 hours (over 3 hours in 24p) in AVC-Intra 100 or DVCPRO HD and 5 hours (over 6.5 hours in 24p) in AVC-Intra 50 or DVCPRO 50.

Panasonic’s P2 card is based on ultra-reliable, solid-state memory, consisting of four SD cards, like those now used in digital still cameras, packaged in a rugged, die-cast frame that weighs only 0.099 lbs (45 grams). This convenient card has four times the capacity and four times the transfer speed of a single SD card. The P2 card is reusable and connects instantly with laptops and major non-linear editing systems to eliminate the time-consuming task of digitizing.

The P2 card is resistant to impact (up to 1,500G), vibration (up to 15G), shock, dust and environmental extremes including temperature changes. It operates in temperatures from -4° to 176°F (-20 to 60°C), and can be stored in temperatures from -40° to 176°F (-40 to 80°C). Unlike tapes and discs, the P2 card has no rotating or contact parts. The solid-state P2 memory card can transfer data at speeds up to 640Mbps to provide the professional user with fast, easy operation. Compared to tape or disc, P2 acquisition requires no media consumption, resulting in tremendous savings in media costs as well as environmental benefits.

The new 32GB card is fully compatible with the current 16GB P2 card, so users who’ve upgraded their P2 product(s) and computer system for 16GB operation are ready for 32GB operation. For P2 users who haven’t completed this upgrade, it is a requirement to take advantage of 32GB operation.

It all started with an Aug. 14 New York Times obituary by Douglas Martin for photographer Joe O’Donnell. Martin praised his exceptional work and took special notice of a picture made during President Kennedy’s funeral cortege: “And the O’Donnell photograph of John F. Kennedy Jr. saluting his father’s coffin became the most reproduced version of that memorable scene.” Martin goes on to note that, because he was on the government payroll, Mr. O’Donnell got no personal credit for those photos, although he signed and sold copies of them after his retirement from the White House in 1968.

When Gary Haynes saw the reproduction of the John-John salute alarm bells went off. Haynes, a retired UPI photographer and author of “Picture This!” (Bulfinch Press, 2006), a compilation of great UPI photographs, got in touch with The New York Times. “I’m the one who told The Times, on Aug. 15, the morning after the obit ran, that the photo they had credited to ‘O’Donnell’ was, I was 99% certain, the famous UPI photo shot by Stan Stearns…. There’s no question that the photos are identical. It is impossible for two photographers, even if they are gaffer-taped together, to come up with identical photos.

“I not only relayed this to The Times, but also the Downhold group [a listserv for ex-UPI personnel], and trust me, if you want something checked out by a couple of dozen of the world’s best journalists – only some of them retired – this is your group.

“Before long, guys who were THERE or who knew people who were there they could check with, were poking holes in the obit itself … to have taken some of the photos he claimed, O’Donnell would have had to have taken them as a teenager!”

The Times obit also ran in The Boston Globe and many other newspapers. The Tennessean in Nashville ran a glowing account of O’Donnell’s life. Television news also picked up the story and image. The “O’Donnell” image was used (as of 9/2) on the State of the Art blog site from editors of American Photo. It says in part: “Joe O’Donnell was a White House photographer during the Kennedy years, and he snapped the enduring images of John Kennedy Junior saluting as his father’s casket passed during the emotional state funeral in 1963. The photo was widely though anonymously distributed.”

Editor’s note: to see the original story, go to The Digital Journalist