Thursday Crib Sheet: Time's Story Of The Year, Chris Matthews Admits The Obvious

Time Magazine lists as its biggest story of the year … Occupy Wall Street. Seriously.

Time Magazine serves up its year-end list, Occupy-style.


The Occupy movement has remained leaderless, amorphous and spontaneous — demonstrators carry signs advocating everything from financial reform to healthcare reform to a ban on fracking — it’s still unclear what sort of real lasting political effect the movement can have. But the sheer persistence of the occupations, galvanized by incidents of heavy-handed policing in New York and California that shocked the nation, have given the protesters’ appeals for economic justice a weight that may play a real role in the upcoming presidential election.

Really? Just the other day:

A German reporter asked Browne if he thought the Occupy movement needed its own song. “You don’t need a new song for the movement,” he said. “It’s got plenty of songs. It just needs people to show up and sing.”

He’s right. But where are they?

A lefty WaPo blogger just blew Time’s story there. The movement is already dead and there weren’t enough of them to accomplish anything in the first place.

– Obvious alert: Chris Matthews says that maybe he was too much into Obama last time around.

– NYT: Angry birds is a threat:

“The threat comes from the direction of everyone who competes with us for the readers’ attention. Even Angry Birds, for that matter, because it consumes people’s time. Our commerce people have to pay attention to so many competitors, with many of whom we have business relations. They have to ask, ‘Is Apple a threat? Is Google? Is “The Wall Street Journal”?”

Prayers for Bret Baier’s son.

– If we’re all journalists, shouldn’t we be protected?

Traditional journalists are still open to prosecution for defamation, and the only way for Cox to defend herself would have been to prove her allegations were true (which would have meant revealing her source). But the court’s decision that freedom of the press protections only apply to journalists with traditional or mainstream entities seems out of step with rulings like the O’Grady case or the Lipez ruling, which suggests journalism — and the idea of who is a journalist — is a much broader concept than it has been in the past.

.