But CNN used to be competent at following a breaking story, and Peter Jennings was pretty good as sorting through the incoming facts. Moments like those are when an anchor really is a “managing editor,” deciding where to focus and what to ignore. It’s like watching a newsroom in action.

Here I’m using it to allude to the notion that you can’t take all reports at their word: there’s Western wishful thinking, there’s the potential of being Chalabied by exiled dissidents, there’s the problem of spotty reporting that may not reflect the whole, and in general it’s very hard to determine the significance of a given fact, even if true. Especially right now, where there’s some suspicion that the military has trumped the theocracy, both of which trump what passes for a civil government.

These are the things you’d like a well-grounded anchor of a well-produced newscast to sort out while the news breaks. Too bad we don’t have one.

Actually, tis true. This was a great, informative, useful, basically-awesome post.

I always have to look up that word. And I never remember what it means.

Reminiscent of a great Jay Z couplet: I got no patience; and I hate waitin’.

Couldn’t happen to a nice bunch of scumbags (Iranian Hardline government types.)

Now I go look at linky-clickeys.

Could we set up a stinger-missile fund for wayward Socialist Youth here at home? Or at least a few pennies to buy some red hankies?