In a very interesting article from the Chicago Tribune (via Romenesko), the paper’s editor discusses the quandry newspapers sometimes find themselves in when deciding how to quote sources in articles. Should reporters clean up grammar and syntax? Should they attempt to infer meaning that might otherwise not be clear?

- White Sox manager Ozzie Guillen, if he were quoted literally, would be all but unintelligible most of the time, because his command of English is minimal. Is our purpose in quoting Guillen to demonstrate his abilities as a wordsmith or to present his knowledge of the game of baseball? And what does this mean for a reporter who must decide whether and how to “clean up” Guillen’s quotations?

Anyone who has heard Guillen give an interview in English knows how hard it is to understand what he’s saying. Whenever I read his quotes in the paper, I have to laugh because I’m sure a bunch of reporters got together and agreed on what he said for their stories. The same practice has been true among NBA beat writers who for years have been trying to decipher the likes of Shaqulle O’Neal and other.

I first heard of Ronald Reagan’s death Saturday afternoon as I was standing on the shore of Lake Michigan in Chicago. We had spent the afternoon at the city’s GospelFest in Grant Park and were walking down the shore when I checked the neds on my cell phone. After reading the news, as I looked back at the skyline, I was reminded vividly of Reagan’s “City on a Hill” theme, which echoed through his eight years. With the sun setting behind the skyscrapers, the potency of that image struck me again.

Reagan will certainly be remembered differently by different people. His enduring legacy will that of the ultimate Cold Warrior, calling out Gorbachev and the Soviets at a time when no one thought they would respond. His optimism carried America through some tough times in the early 1980s, and it’s unlikely that a president with equal gravitas will ever inhabit the Oval Office again.

My most distinct memory of Reagan came after the Challenger tragedy. Hearing Reagan remind us in his grandfatherly that everything was going to be all right seemed to stick in my head for years to come. I was lucky to have seen Reagan in person back in 1984 when he came to suburban Chicago to campaign. My dad — a lifelong Democrat — took me to see Reagan when he spoke at a local community college. It’s something I’ll never forget.

So the world bids farewell to the Great Communicator, who no longer looks through that glass dimly, but now sees his savior face to face.

It’s time to get this done:

The movement to introduce low-power radio stations onto the FM dial in urban areas got a boost Friday from two powerful senators who introduced a bill allowing federal regulators to license small stations.

Sens. John McCain (R-Arizona), chairman of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, and Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont), the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, introduced the measure, which they hope will lead to the introduction of hundreds of community radio stations that can reach listeners up to 3.5 miles away.

I’m all in favor of licensing low-power (100 watts and less) stations in communities that aren’t being served by truly local radio. Technically, it could work, but corporate broadcasters are needlessly paranoid. Congress needs to hear the voice of the people on this.

I watched the trailer for Michael Moore’s forthcoming Fahrenheit 9/11 that did so well at Cannes. I must say, even though I disagree with his politics, I think Moore is a great filmmaker. I was saying that before Bowling for Columbine, back in the TV Nation and Roger & Me days. He has a knack for getting audiences excited about this topics, with a combination of humor and outrage.

My problem with Moore isn’t that he’s a leftist, which is fine by me. I have trouble with his ethics. Filmmaking is storytelling, and even though you might label your genre as non-fiction, that doesn’t mean you’re telling the truth.

Images can be manipulated just as easily as any other medium. Moore knows this implicity because he knocks American media so much in his films. Why should we trust Moore any more than anyone else? Doesn’t he stand to benefit from the success of his films just as much as any corporation would if we bought their products?

He tries to pass off his films as documentary, in the tradition of National Geographic special on the jungles of South America or my dad’s vacation slides. While that’s a nice notion, it’s not really accurate. He’s trying to be as persuasive as the next guy will use any means necessary to justify his position. If he’d just admit that, then I’d be fine with him. But rather, he holds rather doggedly to his hatred of President Bush and most conservatives. Such a position really hurts his credibility. I’m sure this film will be entertaining, though.

UPDATE: Apparently Ray Bradbury isn’t too happy that Moore has pilfered the title of his classic book for this film. He had a few choice words to say here. There’s also a great interview with him at salon.com. This guy is awesome.

Things don’t look good for Dennis Miller, whose gabfest on CNBC continues to post some pretty disappointing ratings. He was down to just 132,000 households in May, which is awful.

Personally, I love his show on CNBC. People knocked Miller when he did Monday Night Football for sounding too intellignet. While his schtick didn’t work well for football, I think the stuff he does on CNBC is excellent. He’s smart, funny, and willing to bring on guests you wouldn’t find anywhere else. It’s got a definite Hollywood does politics feel to it.

The main problem, as I see it, is that he’s on CNBC, for crying out loud. CNBC is primarily a daytime viewing channel. It’s watched by people in the financial industries. That’s the brand. It’s not primarily a news or political channel, except when news or politics affects the market. Consequently, that audience disappears when the market closes because CNBC stops airing financial programming, for the most part.

The prime-time schedule on CNBC is a graveyard, because the normal audience has been trained to tune out. No other viewers will tune in because they perceive CNBC as being a financial channel, so why even surf?

That leaves Dennis Miller to waste away between Tim Russert and Louis Rukeyser. No wonder no one is watching. Why would they put Miller on CNBC? I’d much prefer to see him get bumped over to MSNBC and take Deborah Norville’s slot. I don’t know what her ratings are, but I know that I’ve never seen her program. They have a pretty solid line-up on MSNBC right now, with Matthews at 7pm ET beating CNN, followed by Olberman who is doing well right now also. To me, Norville is too CNN to work on CNBC. She’s too much about reporting and not enough punditry, especially for prime-time. I say swap her for Miller, and exile her on CNBC.