The com­plete absence of coun­try music on the whiplash­ing summer-​music chart New York put together last week is even less sur­pris­ing than the New York Times’s sim­i­lar sin of omis­sion a few weeks ago. And yet if New York is really, as I sug­gested to a friend the other day, the People mag­a­zine for people like us, you’d think they might try to imag­ine an “us” with a little less con­stricted sense of what counts as summer sonic fun.

There’s some­thing to Jane Dark’s sug­ges­tion that these blind spots are all about class, but I don’t know if that fully explains it. I mean, hell, in every respect save dis­pos­able income and zip code, I’m at the demo­graphic heart of the class their ads are gun­ning for, right down to Dr. Hakimi’s Art of Oral Har­mony. But there I go again, lis­ten­ing to—and, shh, even liking!–coun­try music.

Not that I’m too wor­ried; we all, some­how, find our own ways to sur­vive the dik­tats of glossy-​magazine taste. But still you have to wonder what it’s going to take to make coun­try music safe for the archi­tects of medi­ated cool, when even the high-​profile defec­tions of Jack White, Robert Plant, Jewel, Jes­sica Simp­son, and Jon Bon Jovi couldn’t do it.

You have to wonder, that is, until it hits you: Hootie!

Darius Rucker will save us all.

From Laura Bush’s pro­file of Khaled Hos­seini for Time:

Bush, an activist on behalf of Afghan women, is First Lady of the U.S.

There’s a pretty sur­pris­ing mis­take in today’s NYT story about yesterday’s interest-​rate cut. The offend­ing sen­tence comes in the second para­graph of Steven R. Weisman’s article:

The Fed’s action brought the fed­eral funds rate — the rate it charges banks for overnight loans — to 2 per­cent, from 2.25 per­cent, the lowest level since Novem­ber 2004.

The prob­lem is that clause between em-​dashes. The “rate [the Fed] charges banks for overnight loans” is not the fed­eral funds rate, it’s the dis­count rate. The fed­eral funds rate is the rate that banks charge each other for overnight loans, which rate the Fed is able to con­trol through open-​market operations.

As the head­line of this post indi­cates, I was about to put this down to a brief slip of edi­to­r­ial atten­tion, but look­ing back through the NYT archive, it looks like a fairly common error on the paper’s part. Here’s a sim­i­lar sen­tence from an arti­cle Weis­man wrote a few days ago:

The com­mit­tee also low­ered the fed­eral funds rate, the rate it charges banks for overnight loans, by three-​quarters of a point, to the cur­rent 2.25 percent.

And here’s another from an arti­cle in March, this one writ­ten by Edmund L. Andrews:

The cen­tral bank low­ered its fed­eral funds rate — the rate it charges banks for overnight loans — by three-​quarters of a per­cent­age point, to 2.25 per­cent, and left the door open to addi­tional rate cuts in the months ahead.

In case you don’t trust me on this, here’s how Reuters (cor­rectly) described the fed­eral funds rate in a story about yesterday’s cut:

The cen­tral bank’s action takes the bell­wether fed­eral funds rate target, which banks charge each other for overnight loans, to 2 per­cent — the lowest since Decem­ber 2004.

And for good mea­sure, here’s the AP’s version:

The latest Fed move brought the fed­eral funds rate — the inter­est that banks charge each other — down to 2.25 per­cent, the lowest since late 2004.

As a cod­i­cil to last night’s prob­a­bly ill-​advised expli­ca­tion de Mil­bank, may I sug­gest this post over at David Dayen’s D-Day blog. Dayen quotes a pretty eye-​opening exchange between the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza and Hard­ball host Chris Matthews. In it Matthews gives voice to the secret fear that Barack Obama and Jere­miah Wright are really the same person. (He even invokes Jekyll and Hyde.) Lizza argues—rather nobly, I’d sug­gest, but what do I know?—that jour­nal­ists might have some respon­si­bil­ity to work against that way of thinking:

LIZZA: There should be a prin­ci­ple in these cases in this cam­paign. There is no guilt by asso­ci­a­tion. This guy has one set of views, Obama has another set of views. If the views match up, then it’s fair game. But the guy’s been in pol­i­tics since the mid-90s. He has a record in the State Senate in Illi­nois. He has a record in the US Senate. He’s laid out an agenda as a pres­i­den­tial can­di­date. Where do his views match up with Jere­miah Wright’s? And why as jour­nal­ists are we con­fus­ing the two? It seems to me totally unfair that this guy is get­ting smeared with the views of some­one just because he’s his former pastor.

But Matthews will have none of it:

MATTHEWS: So every time you have a prob­lem with Barack, because you don’t really know him and he seems a little for­eign to you, you think of him as both these guys. They’re dif­fer­ent faces of the same guy. Jere­miah Wright to a lot of people is Barack Obama. They’ve become the same Chicago char­ac­ter run­ning for Pres­i­dent. One is the good doctor, the other is the mon­ster that shows up at night.

LIZZA: Look, I think there’s a danger of that hap­pen­ing. But as jour­nal­ists I think there’s a respon­si­bil­ity to make it clear…

MATTHEWS: OK, carve it apart, sep­a­rate the two. Try.

LIZZA: This guy went to a church. This guy is the pastor of that church. Now one of those guys is run­ning for Pres­i­dent and has laid out a vision that is rad­i­cally dif­fer­ent than any­thing his left-​wing pastor had to say. Yes, it tells you some­thing about who he is, it tells you some­thing about the com­mu­nity where he came from. But it doesn’t tell you any­thing, and nobody should con­fuse one with–

MATTHEWS: Do you think it might be hurt­ing a good man like Mitt Romney and his family, and good mem­bers of the LDS Church, that they’re being embar­rassed by this break­away group down in Texas in the last couple weeks? You don’t think that story hurts Mitt Romney’s chances of being on the ticket? Yes it does. So I’m saying, these asso­ci­a­tions, fair or unfair, birds of a feather, it’s the way people think.

“It’s the way people think”—by “people” Matthews means–or he thinks he means, anyway–the little people, the people out there in TV land, and espe­cially the working-​class white people in his beloved Penn­syl­va­nia. But as the Klein and Mil­bank pieces I quoted yes­ter­day show us, it’s really the “people” in the political-​media echo cham­ber he’s describing.

Which leads me to offer an odd kind of praise for Matthews. How­ever minor his value as a con­duit of actual news, you’ve at least got to give him credit for this: he seems to be a pretty accu­rate mouth­piece for the id of the national media. All the irra­tional hopes, desires, and fears that most jour­nal­ists are too pro­fes­sional to ever cop to openly come tum­bling from Matthews’s mouth on a near nightly basis.