Paging Steven Stills...

After grappling for two weeks on whether to write about the Jon Stewart/Jim Cramer showdown and its ramifications, I decided to pull a Jarom 1:2 on the issue: "For what could I write more than my fathers have written?"

Since I'm more of a sports journalist guy anyway, I found an appealing story nonetheless.

The Washington Post recently hired Chico Harlan to serve as their beat reporter for the Washington Nationals, the still-fresh Major League Baseball team.

Trouble is, he'd rather be writing about something else.

In an interview with Washingtonian magazine, Harlan expressed that he did not see the Nationals beat as his life's calling:

“I don’t like sports—I am embarrassed that I cover them,” Harlan said. “I can’t wait to stop. It is a means to an end and a paycheck.”

Understandably, Nationals fans (though in small supply) expressed their outrage over the fact that the Post would alienate baseball readers with a writer who admittedly hates the game.

But...

Could his refusal to get into the details of the sport itself actually provide more objective coverage? The Post's other baseball writer, Tom Boswell, is notorious for his love/hate relationship with the fledgling Nationals, who have yet to finish over .500 since their move to Washington.

Harlan thinks he can.

“My approach might drive hard-core fans crazy because I might not get inside for that nitty-gritty play-by-play,” he said. “The passion I can drum up is wanting to capture what is unique about each game. I am interested in the characters more than anything.”

Obviously, every reporter will at some point have a beat or do a story outside of their hopes and dreams, but does it hurt one's credibility by making it public?

For me, all journalists ought to follow the mantra of Steven Stills:

"And if you can't be with the one you love, honey, love the one you're with."

Maybe I can snag that Nationals job in a couple years...I'd take it!

Rush Limbaugh: De Man, De Myth, De Facto

As the Republican party searches high and low for a definitive leader, the polarizing force that is Rush Limbaugh appears to have taken it upon himself to lead conservatives through the wilderness. The highlight of this ascension has been his keynote address at CPAC, the annual official conservative convention. The 90-minute speech included scathing remarks toward President Obama and misquoting the Constitution.

Not surprisingly, this de facto coronation of Limbaugh has rubbed some high-ranking conservatives the wrong way. The most notable of these has been recently elected RNC chairman Michael Steele:

"No he's not. I'm the de facto leader of the Republican party," Steele said.

The RNC chief went on to call Limbaugh a mere "entertainer" whose show is "incendiary" and "ugly."

Limbaugh fired back:

"So I am an entertainer and I have 20 million listeners because of my great song and dance routine," Limbaugh said. "Michael Steele, you are head of the Republican National Committee. You are not head of the Republican party. Tens of millions of conservatives and Republicans have nothing to do with the Republican National Committee...and when you call them asking for money, they hang up on you."

"I'm not in charge of the Republican Party, and I don't want to be," he said. "I would be embarrassed to say that I'm in charge of the Republican Party in a sad-sack state that it's in. If I were chairman of the Republican Party, given the state that it's in, I would quit."

Steele has since apologized to Limbaugh thusly:

"My intent was not to go after Rush - I have enormous respect for Rush Limbaugh...I was maybe a little bit inarticulate... There was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership. I went back at that tape and I realized words that I said weren’t what I was thinking..."

Other prominent Republicans who have denounced then apologized to Rush have prompted the creation of a site straight out of Mad Libs: imsorryrush.com.

Limbaugh, as expected, has taken everything in stride, but is not necessarily doing anything to convince people he doesn't want to be a figurehead for the conservative cause.

Case in point, this challenge from his show today:

"I am offering President Obama to come on this program -- without staffers, without a teleprompter, without note cards -- to debate me on the issues."

Oy...

While there will be many dissenters to the claim that Limbaugh is a journalist, let's just say he is for the sake of this argument. Sure, he may have a journalistic right to voice his opinion of dissent towards the presidency, but is he out of line to challenge Obama to such a duel? What are his motives? Does he want to cement himself as THE conservative voice for America and serve his party, or does he want boffo ratings? Would proper motives make this supposed debate more journalistically sound?

Above all: Is it a practicing journalist's proper place to find himself at such an elevated place within the political system?

Maybe Rush has been watching a little too much Frost/Nixon...