If you’re a journalist who’s still on Twitter… why?

Here’s what I don’t understand— the House passed a CR to fund the Gov’t for 7 weeks. We’re 6 weeks into the shutdown.

What would’ve happened with no deal at the 7 week mark?

What would’ve happened if Senate Dems agreed to the House’s CR (as written) this Friday late in the afternoon?

And further tell them: if at least one note inspires a change that makes the script better—from their POV, not mine—we can declare success.

Never feel any need to justify rejecting any of my notes.

Then I give a shitload of notes.

Whenever I give notes, I preface the delivery by reminding the writer it is their story and their voice that needs to come thru. And I expect most of the notes to be ignored, quickly, without a second thought, as they simply reflect what I am thinking as I read their story. 1/2

Heard on a podcast (Michael Lewis’ “Against the Rules” series) that humble brags achieve less than loud and proud brags.

This, change “hard to believe I was a Nichol…” to “Damn right I was a Nichol…”

Why doesn’t the traditional media stop (!!!) asking questions or asking for comment (or grant TV time) from people who give nothing but lies, misinformation and utter BS?

How’s that working out?!

Journalists must adapt better.

Sounds like a fun story

As it now seems the inciting incident isn’t the customer’s accidental death, but the daughter’s unfathomable error in disposing of the dead body.

Followed by “…the owners of a struggling diner must divert the attention of a new police investigator before she discovers ‘people burgers’ on the menu.”

That suggests the “after XXX happens” part of the logline might be “After their dimwit daughter makes burgers out of the body of a dead customer…”

Part of the problem here is that an “accidental” death implies a lack of negative legal consequences