2 Books, many minutes

Jim: As requested, a return of the book discussions. We have two books this week and participating are The Third Estate Sunday Review's Dona, Jess, Ty, Ava and Jim; Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude; Betty of Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man; C.I. of The Common Ills and The Third Estate Sunday Review; Kat of Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills); Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix; Mike of Mikey Likes It!; Elaine of Like Maria Said Paz; and Wally of The Daily Jot. We'll start with Craig Crawford's Attack The Messengers: How Politicians Turn You Against The Media. I'll toss this out to start things off, Crawford writes on page 118: "It is time for journalists to get better at explaining their work to the public."

Dona: Oh, I would agree and suggest that Crawford start with himself. This is a purile book, a miniscule mind railing against the world whose only 'insight' appears to derive from knowing where to place a period. For the record, Crawford is a gas bag, prefers the term "commentator" though he has much to slam about other commentators, and he has a number of outlets, all of which he plugs in the course of his PowerPoint presentation masquerading as a book.

Jess: I'm going to try to watch the language and that's not usually a problem for me but I've rarely been so enraged by an idiot proving how stupid he is page after page. I'll grab "Public Broadcasting" from pages 126 to 126. Nonsense and stealing criticism from others. This is an issue since he's just written of attribution for Associated Press stories. There's not an original thought in his two pages nor is there even an understanding of public broadcasting. Pacifica, the nation's oldest public broadcaster, is something he's apparently never heard of. Libertarian that the schmuck is, he tries to navigate the charge of PBS being "liberal" but only comes off confused. On page 125 it's a "reputation." Then on 126 it's "an image." In the next sentence it becomes a reality: "But decades of catering to liberal viewers and listeners have made it difficult to find conservative personalities who can attract the public broadcasting audiences."

Jim: C.I. and Rebecca both noted this on the cards they filled out.

C.I.: Give it to Rebecca because I've got several things to note.

Rebecca: I'll take it. William Buckley, has asshole Crawford ever heard of him? Apparently not. But Buckley was a PBS institution with Firing Line. From 1971 to 1999, Firing Line aired on PBS. Twenty-eight years. Can Crawford give us an example of any liberal who hosted an opinion program on PBS for even five years? No. And he can't even comprehend what a liberal is. He may have run for Congress, and failed at it, no surprise, but he has no clue about politics.
And I think liberal programming would be interested in human rights but PBS has no interest in that, they refused to carry a weekly program on that topic.

C.I.: That Danny Schechter was producing.


Elaine: Can I jump in?

Rebecca: Sure.

Elaine: I know we're all trying to be sure to hit on this point out of respect for Ruth, so let me just correct him on something Washington Week does not offer "in depth reporting." It has never offered it, it will never offer it. Washington Week is nothing but a chat show with a bunch of gasbags. It is not reporting. It is The Mike Douglas Show with F-List guests. Know what you're writing about if you sit down to write a book. Apparently facts, like research, weren't important to Crawford. He can argue that it offers "discussion," he cannot maintain that it offers investigative reporting or "finely balanced news." And Washington Week is one of the worst at spinning conventional wisdom. It's also got uninformed guests and a host who once got edgy when one of the guests referred to the First Amendment and Gwen Ifell felt the need to say something to the effect of "Well, whatever it says." If you don't know the First Amendment, you don't need to pass yourself off as having anything to do with journalism.

Ty: His "evaluations" are laughable throughout. In his "How to Get the Real Story" (chapter ten), he starts reviewing various "news" outlets. Don Imus gets eight paragraphs. The New York Times gets one sentence, The Washington Post gets one sentence. He's a frequent guest on Imus which must be why, in eight paragraphs, he can't ever mention the charges of racism against Imus' broadcasts. Imus has no "rough level of objectivity" unless you're a White person who doesn't give a crap about people of color. And staying silent about documented racisim isn't going to help Crawford "gain credibility."

Jess: I found it laughable that he tosses out independent journalism in his second paragraph and quotes Bill Moyers in the third paragraph but fails to provide an example of independent journalism in the whole chapter.

Betty: If we're going to Imus, let me add that Rush Limbaugh did not "lead" the way for opinion news on the radio. Possibly Crawford never heard Paul Harvey intone "And that's the rest of the story" but Harvey was doing his opinion for years. Possibly Crawford's made of "sugar candy" and not just uninformed. And can we talk about race because Crawford can't. Anyone who sees Fox "News" as a "reliable alternative to mainstream coverage" can kiss my Black ass.
He truly thinks people can get 'all sides' from cable news by skipping from CNN to MSNBC to Fox 'News.' While Cracker's a-skipping, he might want to ask himself where are the people of color. Or maybe dark skin makes Casper go "Boo!"?

Jim: (Laughing) We truly hated this book.

Mike: Because who likes an ass kisser? Really, he should have called the book One Long Pucker Up. When not sucking up to the people who pay him to appear on his shows, he's sucking up to anyone he thinks might give him a shout out. Which is why he spends so much time on Matt Drudge. A "highly skilled news editor"? How many sentences did he give to The New York Times in this chapter, chapter ten?

Ty: One.

Mike: Right, so he gives seven paragraphs to 'covering' Matt Drudge. Covering him in wet, sloppy, open mouthed kisses. Hope Drudge wiped before Crawford attached his lips. And he praises Google News as the best online news search engine? Let me echo Elaine and C.I. here: why the hell are they listing Voice of America as a news source?

Jim: Wally?

Wally: Let me do a Daily Jot take on this book. This just in! In Attack The Messenger, Craig Crawford writes: "Professional journalism is not dead." No word yet on whether it's merely brain dead. Wags are wondering not how an ass managed to grip a pen but how it managed to write with one.

Elaine: He opens himself up to the criticism. He slaughters Finley Peter Dunne's meaning when he basically quotes Claire Booth Luce and attempts to pass it off as Dunne. Dunne's point was not merely about the powerful and the afflicted, it was about the inflated sense of self and also included marriage and burial among other things. It was a character in a novel that I don't think Crawford even read it. If he read it, there's no indication that he understood it. Considering Crawford's book, the fact that he fails to grasp Dunne's meaning may support the conclusion that he did actually read Dunne.

Dona: The people, "the public," he's so Joan Crawford, doesn't need to give media "the space" to do their job. What a pompous statement. And I didn't read Dunne, but from that comment alone, his opinion of himself and his profession is as inflated as the supposed arrogance Crawford sees in adopting Dunne's statement. Or Luce's as Elaine pointed out. No one needs to get out of your way for you to do your job. I don't care if it's flipping burgers or reporting from DC. You do your job. What a big cry baby.

Rebecca: And let's note his comments about JFK and Bill Clinton's sexual adventures. He feels that the press was silenced by charm. What world did he live in? LBJ had a member of his cabinet, this was obviously after JFK was assasinated since it was LBJ's cabinet, forced out when news of his same-sex adventures got out. Not out in print, just out and talked about. I believe the press ran with the arrest record. But affairs, same-sex or otherwise, weren't made into big news where people talked openly about them. You had a predominately male press corps and you had a different attitude about extramarital affairs. That changed and it changed on the local and state scenes. Then it flowed up on to the Gary Hart campaign. But the coverage of Clinton's adventures wasn't just a case of the press wallowing in the mud and we're talking before Lewinsky even dreamed of blow jobs. You also had members of Congress airing the charges and playing the moral police. You had a right-wing funded effort to smear Clinton in every way, which is true as well. But the Henry Hydes played into this effort and when the press has a politician willing to go on the record, it does tend to have impact. But the press refused to seriously explore the many rumors of Poppy Bush's affairs. A few questions here and there and it was shoved aside. And I think anyone who visits my site knows that I deplore Hillary Clinton, don't intend to vote for her if she runs for president and have no use for her. However, she was quite correct that it was a vast right-wing conspiracy and only someone with his head up his ass like Crawford can pretend otherwise.

Jim: Okay, ass kisser or head up his ass? You've confused the argument, Rebecca.

Rebecca: In this case, he kissed his own ass. Generously.

Ava: Well how about Crawford's 'history' anywhere in the book. He traces the attacks on the press from the right to Poppy Bush's presidency.

C.I.: Try Spiro Agnew.

Ava: Exactly. What a stupid, stupid man. He should be ashamed to flaunt his ignorance on page after page of a badly written book. Not just badly 'researched,' but this is tortured writing. It's a torture to read. It's awkward. His idea of a transition is to put a headline up in the midst of a discussion to indicate to the reader that he's dropping everything he was just writing of. It's really bad. I can't get over how poorly written this book is. How this series of luncheon musings, which is how it reads, found a publisher is as big a mystery as what really forced Porter Goss out of the CIA. And, last point, as usual it's all about men. The refusal to note racism has been noted already by Ty and Betty but let's also note that women are largely invisible on the pages of this book. This includes Mary Mapes who is reduced to one sentence though he spends, though he basically bases an entire chapter [chapter seven] on CBS airing the 60 Minutes II story on Bully Boy and his lack of National Guard service.

C.I.: Stop.

Jim: Ava and C.I. are the note takers and when one speaks, the other is the sole note taker. So I'm guessing C.I. needs to catch up and then make a point.

C.I.: Correct. Here's the point. Ava just noted that the story aired on 60 Minutes II. Ava's correct. But readers of the book won't know that and when I mentioned this to a friend at CBS, that we were reviewing this piece of crap, he asked that we note that Crawford confuses a September 15th broadcast on 60 Minutes II with a 60 Minutes broadcast. 60 Minutes airs on Sundays. September 15, 2004 was a Wednesday. Crawford needs to get his facts straight. 60 Minutes was never crazy about having a "spin-off" to begin with and, in true form, it wasn't a spin-off. It was an attempt to make a franchise. The two shows had little in common. Crawford needs to get his facts straight. Prior to that mention, page 95, I believe, readers unfamiliar with the story may well think Rather did the report on the CBS Evening News because, until Crawford gets it wrong, he never mentions any news program but the Evening News. It's not nit picking, it matters. Where the show aired matters. If there are two shows with similar names, it matters that you get it right. Earlier in the book, page 16, I think, he writes that "60 Minutes producers" admitted something, referring to the Bully Boy story, and that is incorrect. 60 Minutes never aired the story. 60 Minutes II did. The two shows have as much in common as CSI and CSI Miami. You wouldn't review or critique something on CSI Miami while referring to it as CSI. It's bad writing from a really bad columnist who, despite the blurbs on the back of his book, isn't thought highly of by anyone in the press I spoke to this week. That doesn't count as my issue with the book, by the way.

Jim: Fine. You're really the only one who feels you offer too much in discussions. I should add that Cedric and Kat hated the book and want to emphasize the second book so they told Dona they'd sit this one out. So if you're scanning down the page for their names, they haven't fallen asleep. They just saw no point in even discussing the book.

Jess: I just want to add that on taxes, he can do what most bad reporters can do, read a study he doesn't understand, grab a pull quote and confuse the issue because he doesn't truly grasp it.

Jim: A point made repeatedly this semester by two professors.

Jess: Correct. If you don't know what you're talking about, you can't fact check. He can't fact check Kerry's claims on Bully Boy's taxes during the 2004 campaign. Or, if he can, he plays fast and loose because he wants to appear "fair." Kerry was correct. And going to studies by any group isn't going to help you when you don't know what you're talking about. As Jim noted, this was a point stressed in two of our journalism courses this semester and, in one, the tax claim was actually addressed for two class periods. Crawford needs to sit in on those classes before he starts confusing what a "share" is and what a percent is and what percent matters and what percent doesn't. If the press wants to improve their image, first step, stop passing yourself off as a know-it-all when you are far from an expert on all matters. You aren't trained to be an expert so quit pretending you were.

Cedric: Can I go ahead and jump in?

Jim: Sure, what you got?

Cedric: Well, Rebecca picked up on some of this but I want to add to it, talking about Clinton's adventures with Lewinsky. He writes, Crawford:

Could there be a lower moment in presidential history? It was a pitiful story handled with utter disregard for a president's obligation to tell the truth to the American people.

Cedric (Con't): That's page 37, by the way. But the thing is, yes, there is a more pitiful story: Lying a nation into war. For Crawford to claim that reporters had to pursue the sex story on Clinton because 'It was a lie!' and, page 41, "the media cannot back off when the president of the United States stands up in the West Wing and lies to the American people -- even if he is 'just lying about sex,' an excuse often cited to dismiss the story." If Crawford really believes that, he might want to spend the amount of pages he wastes on Clinton's sex life in exploring how Bully Boy lied a nation into a war, a war which is ongoing, unlike the relationship between Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton which is just a bone that Crawford can't let go of.

Rebecca: He is obsessed with Clinton's sex life. His tight lipped photo may indicate a degree of sexual repression which may explain the obsession with the sex lives of some others. Though he's not really going down that road with Poppy Bush. He leaves out . . .

C.I.: Vanity Fair.

Rebecca: Right! The story that infurated Poppy. It wasn't being asked by Stone Phillips where he had a national audience to try to shame Phillips with. He's quite good at attacking those who question. But the Vanity Fair article, which he couldn't give one of his non-answers to, did bother him. I don't think he's a reader, Crawford. He's a gas bag. That's why he can't speak much to the subject of newspapers. It's only news if he hears it on the radio or sees it on TV.

Betty: I'd like to note Howard Dean. Crawford "covers" the scream and I found that another example of how ill informed Crawford is. Here's Crawford's version in a nutshell. Dean attacks the media, according to Crawford after he loses his bid for the Democratic nomination, because of the "Dean scream" -- as labeled by Crawford. Crawford tut-tuts that Dean should be aware that the press was "largely" the reason Dean "rose to the top of the heap in the year before the 2004 Democratic primaries." Now let's do a reality check. The mainstream press was largely mocking of Dean. He rose to the top due to his ability to raise money online. His campaign got out it's word online and in meet ups. It had success not because of the press, but in spite of the press. Most importantly, Dean is right to criticze the press for the airing of that clip and Crawford can't be bothered with noting that. The clip aired stripped out the audience's reactions. You had Dean screaming and saying "Woo-hoo!" to a silent crowd. The reason his voice was so loud was because they were cheering loudly. The press clearly deserves blame for their coverage of the so-called "Dean scream." Crawford's not interested in that.

Kat: And let's note that the "Dean scream" coverage came not long after Dean started making noises about reigning in the news corporations. Sorry to butt in.

Jim: No, glad to have it. We'll wrap up by going to C.I.

C.I.: Well I had two things and I was hoping at least one would be grabbed by someone else. Briefly, on page 177, he announces that he doesn't vote. That's his right. Many people don't vote for many reasons including feeling that their vote doesn't matter and/or that the system is rigged. If someone chooses not to vote, as a form of protest, that's their business. But it's nonsense for him to praise Imus for announcing whom he intended to vote for in the 2004 election and then to say that he, Crawford, can't vote because he has to be "neutral."

Ava: Can I grab that?

C.I.: Please do.

Ava: He thinks because he doesn't step into the voting box, he's somehow neutral. Not appearing neutral, but actually neutral. As though if some politician makes a statement he agrees with, and he's closest to libertarian he writes, that's not impacting his coverage? What a fool. And how do you 'not vote' to be neutral? His section on Kerry's statements re: Bully Boy's tax cuts don't indicate that he's neutral. He's obviously pro-tax cuts, fitting with his libertarian views. It does impact the way your respond. And apparently, we're supposed to believe that Crawford's the biggest idiot in the world -- a point his book may persuade many on. He claims that because he doesn't go into the voting booth, he never has to make a decision about which candidate to vote for. Are we really to believe that a presumably educated person doesn't give a thought to a candidate until he steps into a voting booth?

C.I.: I need to add, before I hear about it, that if he wanted to argue that it would give the impression/appearance of neutrality, that would be one thing. There are some in the press who avoid voting for that reason. That's not what's arguing. He's not concerned about an appearance of conflict, he's convinced that he might make a decision.

Ava: Right. And when you think about the very real issues involved in, for instance a presidential race, don't tell me that by just not voting, you're 'neutral.' He's not neutral. I know at least two people that C.I.'s speaking of and I can understand their concern about the appearance, even if I disagree with it, which I do, but he's not worried about appearance. If you asked the two people I'm thinking of if by not voting it avoided them knowing whom they would support, they'd both laugh in your face. It's nonsense.

C.I.: And he's a columnist, not a reporter. Hes already writing his opinion into a column. It makes no sense. The only neutrality is in his fantasies. So that was that. The second point, I know we're trying to wrap this up. I'm pulling from chapters nine and ten for this. Crawford doesn't know what news is. He thinks it's an announcement. He states that September 11th was a shining moment, "bright moment" is the term, I believe, for the news media. He praises their peformance. There's nothing to praise on that day other than the early hours. But this is a man who is in love with C-Span so official statements pass as "news" to him, obviously. News is not an announcement of, "Today in the Gaza Strip ___ happened. Now, we turn to India where . . ." And he can wax fondly for all hours of the Septemeber 11th coverage and the days immediately after, and claim that "ideology and partisanship disappeared'; that "There was no need for pundits"; and that opinons didn't matter because the people "just wanted to know what happened." What happened isn't just that two large buildings fell and the Pentagon took a hit. That's not where the story began and that's not where it ended. And the attacks on Susan Sontag for rightly noting the scare tactics of the media in this period or -- as Ani DiFranco termed it, the "Oh My God!s" -- didn't inform an audience. Like C-Span, it gave you what happened right at that minute. It had no context. It had no perspective. It ran the same video over and over and over, numbing and scaring a nation. And it put on pundits, despite Crawford's claims, who also played the scare game. This golden period that Crawford sees is the same period that had Susan Sontag crucified and a columnist fired for daring to point out that Bully Boy Bunny-hopped across the country instead of returning to DC as a real leader should have. And last point, a real day of news would have featured that clip, on Sept. 11th, of Bully Boy being told the second tower was hit and just sitting in the classroom doing nothing. So let's drop the idea that the media did a wonderful job on that day. They didn't. A few people did, but overall it was useless. It was useless to understanding what happened, the causes for it and how we arrived at this point. Those are topics news should cover. Not just repeat, "The Twin Towers have gone down, let's look at the footage for the 77th time today." Nor does everyone share his belief that elected Democrats and Republicans gathering to sing "God Bless America" was a wonderful thing -- some might say it was pandering at its worst, not to mention really bad air pollution. If he thinks the only time he forms opinions is when he's in the voting booth, he needs to do a self-check.

Jim: So that's Craig Crawford's Attack The Messenger or, in this case, the Dull Witted Water Boy. Thanks to Kat for grabbing some note taking duties at the end when Ava and C.I. were talking. Next up, Lost in the Grooves edited by Kim Cooper and David Smay. Wally, summarize the book.

Wally: This is review of various recordings that the editors and writers feel have been overlooked and hope to rescue. It follows an alphabetical format with each entry under the name of a group. You'll find some names you probably know and hopefully a few you don't.

Cedric: I think some people will like this book and some people will hate it. There are statements in it that could probably set many people's teeth on edge. Music's a really personal thing and when its one of your favorites being dissed while someone you've never heard of is being praised, it's easy to get upset. The key is to realize these are the opinions of many.

Kat: Right. Don't look for seemless, don't expect a thread here other than individuals trying to steer you to their favorites. And don't look for your opinions to be echoed. The whole point of this book is to note work that the various contributors feel has been overlooked. When they have strong feelings about a recording artist, they may slam one of your favorites. Which reminds me, I need to post my review of Pearl Jam at The Common Ills.

Jim: Talk about that a second because I think it goes to the book.

Kat: I was a Nirvana fan. You really didn't attend both "churches." I enjoy the music on the album but the lyrics are . . . lackluster. And it's an ongoing problem with that band. I'm sure some will read the review and say I've slammed the album. I haven't. I've slammed the continued weak spot, the lyrics. I've also noted that they weren't an alternative band. Which, until both Sumner and C.I. pointed it out, I was unaware was still open for debate. Sumner and C.I. weren't calling it alternative, they don't think the band is, but they did note that there are still people who insist upon claiming it is. I don't think most alternative bands fly someone in from San Diego into Seattle to audition for the group, as they did with Eddie Vedder. They're a rock band and they can jam and make wonderful music. I note that but I won't buy into what I see as the myth that they're alternative. I also never saw Metallica as alternative. So the point is, people are expressing their opinions. Some you'll agree with, some you won't. When it's something that the writer has a history with, as I do with Nirvana, there are very strong feelings involved. And now, I'm dropping out of the discussion to go post the review. My apologies to anyone who was waiting for it. I finished around noon but asked C.I. to read over it. After I got feedback on it, I intended to post it but time ran away on me and I forgot.

Cedric: I'll follow up on what Kat's talking about by noting Prince's symbol album. I'm a huge fan of Prince and I don't think I agreed with one opinion expressed. But I enjoyed reading it. The writer, Brian Doherty, was very passionate about Prince and I enjoyed reading his thoughts which went beyond just the album with the symbol for the title.

Betty: I was glad for the inclusion of Prince but I kept looking for others, and especially Black artists, and really didn't see many of them. With Prince, we're talking about an artist who, like Paul McCartney to name another one who gets an album highlighted, we're talking about household names. When they veered off that path, which was frequently, I just felt as though it was all turn right at White City.

Ty: Curtis Mayfield did get two albums mentioned. But I see your point.

Betty: But isn't Curtis Mayfield a household name? In some households he is. And the key may often be the sort of music that house listens to. I mean, take Old 97s. It's a generic White group, in my opinion. But I knew of them before the book. I didn't see a lot of names from outside the White music scene. I mean, I don't think it's fair to cite Marvin Gaye or Curtis Mayfield when you've got people like Robin Gibb. Where are The Isley Brothers? I mean Terence Trent D'Arby is the equivalent to Robin Gibb he does get a shout out. But in commenting on Terence Trent D'Arby, David Smay notes that by 1993, there was no media interest in him and that it had focused on Lenny Kravitz and Me'Shell NdegeOcello -- two people who aren't noted for albums in this book. In fact, of the choices that involve an album by a Black artist, I would rank David Smay as the most brave contributor and the only one really attempting to get people to re-evaluate an album he loved. Marvin Gaye's Here, My Dear, for example, is a Marvin Gaye album. It's a bad one, my opinion, but it's Marvin Gaye and I'm not really sure that it needs rescuing for attention. I'm not talking about deserves. Obviously, I don't think it deserves attention. But, point of fact, by being an album by Marvin Gaye, it already has a huge amount of attention.

Cedric: I'd agree with that. Marvin already gets a huge amount of attention. If you were talking about an album from the sixties, that would be one thing. But Trouble Man and Here, My Dear aren't obscure to African-American audiences.

Betty: Just one more point, time and again when I would read a rave of an album and think, "That's some strong writing," I'd check out the byline and more often than not, it would be David Smay. I wanted to make that point both because I enjoyed his writing and because with all the writers in this collection, I think it's all the harder to stand out. Smay stood out to me.

Jim: Anything else?

Mike: Did anybody have copies that people had written in? On Dennis Wilson's Pacific Ocean Blue, someone had crossed through "(Columbia, 1977)," written "not!" and printed "Blue Sky/CBS."

Jim: I think you got the fact check edition. Were there any other things written in?

Mike: No, just that. I enjoyed the book and thought it was, to steal from Jim's "note" each edition, full of things that will make you think, make you laugh or make you angry.

Cedric: A point Kat and I both wondered about was whether it made anyone want to buy something? Did any of the raves make you think, "Okay, I've got to get that CD?"

Dona: Everyone's silent so I'll speak. Judee Sill, the thing on her self-titled album and Heart Food did make me think, "This might be something you need to check out." That was written by Kim Cooper, by the way.

Cedric: But otherwise, no? That was our point. We felt it worked as writing and conversation starters but when you read so many times "not available on CD," we just wondered how many people were rushing out to purchase. Kat has a turntable but I don't know how many of the rest of us do and, in terms of your average stereo system, I don't know how many people would have one.

Jim: Okay then, that's it --

Wally: Wait. Scram magazine, which put out the guide has a website, http://www.scrammagazine.com and they also adivse you to visit http://www.lostinthegrooves.com "for info and downloads from the artists featured in this book."

Ty: Where did you find that?

Wally: Page 259, in the "About" section.

Betty: Do you have your copy right now?

Wally: Yeah.

Betty: I returned mine when I took the kids to the library. Does it have any information on David Smay's writing?

Wally: "David Smay was the co-editor of Bubblegum Music is the Naked Truth and has contributed to Scram, among many other zines and magazines. He lives in San Francisco with his son and wife, where he is a fan of Los Bros Hernandez, Joss Whedon, Barry Zito, Nathanael West and the New York Dolls. You may not borrow his Film Noir Encyclopedia."

Jess: We should probably note that Craig Crawford has a website as well, it's called Big Loser Wallows In His Own Ignorance.

Jim: (Laughing) For the record that was a joke. To recap, we strongly recommend you check out Lost in the Grooves: Scram's Capricious Guide to the Music You Missed, edited by Kim Cooper and David Smay --

Wally: With illustrations by Tom Neely.

Jim: Thank you. And we strongly recommend that you skip Craig Crawford's Attack The Messenger. The book discussion returned because readers wanted it. But it's doubtful we'll go back to doing four or more a week. There are just too many participants and too many points. We're not sure when we'll do our next book discussion, maybe next week, but Betty saw Attack The Messenger at her library and thought it might be interesting.

Betty: My apologies to everyone.

Jim: No harm. Hopefully, we've provided a public service as a result.