how could you be a "press person" and not think that a cover story such as one done by a mag as established as newsweek NOT matter. that's just plain stupid. not because ben affleck is 'just' a successful actor (and yes, he is successful even though he's not very good at it), does not mean he's wrong. he is obviously well informed enough, considering his age and status,  to form a valid opinion. you, kurt, on the other hand, is involve in a profession you do not even respect enough to see the impact it makes on the society. you think people read something like newsweek to be entertained? wake up or better yet, grow up.

Kurt doth protest to much.

Hell, I'm just a 23-year-old with a bachelor's degree myself (albeit in biology), but I'm familiar with the role that the American press was originally intended to serve.

"Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it." --Thomas Jefferson to John Jay, 1786.

"The art of printing secures us against the retrogradation of reason and information." --Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Paganel, 1811.

"Our citizens may be deceived for awhile, and have been deceived; but as long as the presses can be protected, we may trust to them for light." --Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Stuart. 1799.

I actually wanted to go to Northwestern at one point, but after seeing Kurt piss in Jefferson's face by declaring that the press doesn't matter, I kinda wonder if they teach anything. Granted, Jefferson also stressed that the press is often full of crap, but he said you take the good with the bad. I really can't see any good side to this kind of public behavior, though... except that maybe Kurt will realize that people read Newsweek so that they can actually learn something based in reality, instead of reading a bunch of BS puff pieces interspersed with ads for boner pills.

We need to forgive Kurt.  He's more used to writing about what alcohol he's drinking than being a real journalist.  To wit:

http://www.dailynorthwestern.com/user/index.cfm?event=displayAuthorProfile&authorid=2586690&page=articles

He's barely out of undergrad.  And it shows.

Ben affleck:date of birth 8/15/72 www.celebritywonder.com/html/benaffleck.html That makes him 36 - still young (especially compared to most readers of NW, but long past the age when he could be called a "boy"

Kurt Soller: date of birth (unknown, but 23 years old in 2008)

Mr. Soller - A young man who posts a public picture with a penciled in heart and other drawn markings on your face, might refrain from calling anyone a "boy" even in jest.

While sarcasm has its place, many people get into far more trouble than they cause when they attempt to use it.

Kurt,

Does your philosophy extend to other issues? Like, oh, I dunno, the Iraq War?

Would you argue with a straight face that the media's fawning and incurious coverage of Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld was in no way related to public ignorance about the reasons we went to war and its tragically predictable outcome? Would you argue that the media didn't help Bush in 2004 by giving the Swiftboat Liars weeks of free publicity simply because their BS accusations were "out there"?

I'm sure you would. And this is why you guys get punked. Every single time. People know the way you think: if somebody makes a leak or a public accusation, no matter how spurious, then it's a "story" and must be flogged. If it turns out to be false, then you can just run a correction... after 4 more BS stories come down the pike. When well-meaning citizens want to be informed about their country and their future, they have to try to puzzle their way through this crap.

The reason why freedom of the press is enshrined is because quality journalism *should* and *does* make a difference. Instead, we get travesties like the NYT sitting on domestic spying for 10 months because they didn't want to "impact an election". (Why didn't the journalist mow his lawn for two years? So that the grass would stay at the same height!) We get travesties like Tim Russert letting his anonymous sources give him line-by-line breakdowns of what's "on background" and what he can actually disclose to us peasants, so that nobody's a** ends up hanging in the breeze when it turns out they lied. We get travesties like Dick Cheney leaking a story to the NYT and then going on TV to say "See, even the NYT agrees with me!"

Absolutely pathetic. You guys are EXTREMELY lucky that you aren't legally required to perform any sort of public service, because you would be criminally negligent.

Oh, and thanks for portraying Hank as "Bald Einstein" like that, nobody could have anticipated that he'd turn into Skinny Cheney and funnel hundreds of his billions to his cronies without even a receipt.

Wow!  I guess if Newsweek's words and actions could impact the world, then you'd have to treat your profession seriously instead of as some giant parlor game.

Affleck was correct, obviously.  You and Jessica Pressler are dead wrong, obviously.  For the life of me I have no idea why you can't see that.  But maybe someone who thinks that using terms such as "cambridge boy" is appropriate can't really see anything.

Sadly, Newsweek was not alone in trumpeting for the man who personally lobbied the SEC on behalf of Goldman Sachs to have the debt-to-net-captial ratio changed specifically so they could invest in the types of financial instruments that brought down the banking sector. Any mention of that in your cover story? No? Then the "Cambridge boy" was dead right.

While it's true that Newsweek is the Gigli of political journalism, your defense raises an interesting question.  If you are so adamant about your inability to have an impact on the real world, what is the purpose of even having the publication exist?

So...Your defense is that the things that you publish can't possibly have any influence? Why, then, do you write about anything if not to inform the public — or even Congress for that matter — and influence their thinking? If you think that your reportage doesn't matter, why does Newsweek exist?

I mean I know that economics is dull and hard and public expenditure isn't as sexy as writing about the personality of the man who was given carte blanche to spend it, but what you are admitting here is that you don't really know why the article was written in the first place.