This week’s issue of Newsweek features a photo of Barack Obama with a rainbow halo and a headline proclaiming him as the “First Gay President.”. Of course, Barack Obama isn’t gay, it’s just Newsweek’s way of shocking people and grabbing headlines. I guess they’re not confident in the quality of their writing, and decided to use tabloid techniques to sell magazines.

It could also be a reaction to Time Magazine, which decided to place a picture of a woman breast feeding her child. That alone would be questionable, but when you take into account that the child was pretty big in comparison to his mother, it seemed very strange. Actually, sick is probably a better word.

For me, the topic of the articles isn’t the question. It’s their need to sensationalize articles in order to grab attention in a way that is unrelated to the story. As these techniques continue, the line between news magazines and publications such as The National Enquirer will continue to blur, and journalistic integrity will continue to deteriorate.

A very big kid breast feeds on the cover of Time Magazine.

I check the Drudge Report daily, and on a typical day, I check it several times. It’s a great way to keep up on the news, and it typically links to stories you won’t find in the main-stream media. It’s a great site, but sometimes, it leaves me shaking my head.

I’m used to the frequently misleading captions that link to articles on other sites. That’s annoying, but today, I think it topped itself. It’s headline featured the headline “Rick Rico ,” with a pictures of Rick Santorum wearing only swim trunks. This is news?

I don’t need to list all of the pressing concerns affecting the United States and the world, you’re likely familiar with those. Yet, with all these problems, a shirtless politician makes the news? Is this the story Drudge thinks it’s readers need to see? And we wonder why so many citizens are Ill informed.

Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig, two of the greatest players of all-time, never reached 3,000 hits

I know people are tripping over themselves in an effort to heap accolades on the New York Yankees Derek Jeter after his 3,000th hit. The worst part was the tendency for the media to constantly point out that he’s the only Yankee to ever attain 3,000 hits. Let me just point out one thing: 3,000 hits or not, Jeter isn’t in the same class as Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe DiMaggio, or Mickey Mantle.

After Jeter’s accomplishment, I checked out the list of career hit leaders. Here’s a list of the 28 men who reached 3,000 hits:

1. Pete Rose 4256
2. Ty Cobb 4189
3. Hank Aaron 3771
4. Stan Musial 3630
5. Tris Speaker 3514
6. Cap Anson 3435
7. Honus Wagner 3420
8. Carl Yastrzemski 3419
9. Paul Molitor 3319
10. Eddie Collins 3315
11. Willie Mays 3283
12. Eddie Murray 3255
13. Nap Lajoie 3242
14. Cal Ripken 3184
15. George Brett 3154
16. Paul Waner 3152
17. Robin Yount 3142
18. Tony Gwynn 3141
19. Dave Winfield 3110
20. Craig Biggio 3060
21. Rickey Henderson 3055
22. Rod Carew 3053
23. Lou Brock 3023
24. Rafael Palmeiro 3020
25. Wade Boggs 3010
26. Al Kaline 3007
27. Derek Jeter 3003
28. Roberto Clemente 3000

When you look at that list, are you surprised? There are some great players on that list, but there are some players that I wouldn’t consider among the greats. Excellent player, but not great players. In that list, I would include, George Brett, Robin Yount, Al Kaline, Craig Biggio, Tony Gwynn, Wade Boggs, Paul Molitor, and Derek Jeter. For many, 3,000 hits was the result of longevity mixed in with some strong years, not greatness.

If you think I’m wrong, then consider that Babe Ruth, Joe DiMaggio, Mickey Mantle, Lou Gehrig, and Ted Williams are not on that list. Are the members of the 3,000 hit club somehow superior? I don’t think so, especially when you consider that some players missed substantial at-bats. For example, Babe Ruth was a pitcher who had limited at-bats early in his career, while Ted Williams missed a few years while serving our country as a fighter pilot.

Remember: Round numbers like 3,000 don’t always tell the whole story.

Rupert Murdoch seems confused when it comes to Myspace.

Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. purchased Myspace in 2005 for $580 million. Six years later, the site is losing money, and is reportedly for sale. The price? Likely between $20 million and $30 million. That was a spectacular failure, if I’ve ever seen one.

In 2005, Myspace had a huge advantage in the social networking market. Now, it’s just a footnote in the short history of the industry. As I think about the sale of Myspace, I can’t help think about the AOL Time Warner merger. That was another case of a traditional media company failing to blend with an online entity. AOL still has a pulse, and has some potential for future growth. As for Myspace, I hope the next owners are creative.

The key to turning around the site will revolve around removing intrusive ads, becoming integrated with other sites, becoming mobile friendly, and finding the secret to reinventing the field it created. Personally, i have my doubts. If the new Myspace owners try it, Facebook has probably already thought of it.

Michele Bachmann's campaign is starting to gain momentum.

I found an article on the Drudge Report, with the headline “Shock Poll: Bachmann Tied With Romney in Iowa.” I don’t know what’s so shocking about that. Romney is a plastic candidate who always seems willing to say what people want to hear. The reason why he had such a commanding lead in the polls was due to the popularity of his highly unsuccessful 2008 campaign.

Let’s remember that a lot of people still aren’t paying much attention to the 2012 Presidential Race, so they probably haven’t tuned in to find out much about the candidates. Once people hear more about candidates like Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Ron Paul, and Tim Pawlenty, voters will begin to peel away from the familiar name (Mitt Romney).

So far, Bachmann’s campaign has caught on more quickly than I thought it would. The fact that she is doing well in Iowa polling bodes well for her ability to raise donations and get attention from the press. As for Romney, I would expect him to have a slow, steady drop into the rest of the pack. You’ll know his campaign is done when his opponents stop attacking him and Romneycare, and turn to whomever the perceived frontrunner at the moment turns out to be.

Jose Antonio Vargas of the New York Times

Jose Antonio Vargas, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for the New York Times, has admitted that he is an illegal alien. In his story, Vargas talks about how he came to the United States illegally 18 years ago when he was 12. He also details all the illegal and unethical things he and his family have done to stay here.

From what I’ve read, Jose Antonio Vargas is an intelligent, hard-working individual who has accomplished a great deal in his 30 years. He and his family have also broken immigration laws and committed document fraud, and now he is going public with his crimes. This might not be a popular sentiment, but the government needs to act. If it doesn’t, what kind of message is it sending?

I’m also anxious to see what steps the New York Times takes, if any. Vargas mentions that another paper wouldn’t hire him because of his immigration status. By allowing him to remain employed, they’re essentially endorsing the violation of U.S. immigration laws and document fraud. Although, with their liberal slant, I wouldn’t expect Mr. Vargas’ job to be in danger.

Talk show host Laura Ingraham

After the Ed Schultz’s comments about fellow talk show host Laura Ingraham, I think he’s lucky to have a job. If MSNBC had any interest in being a serious news agency, they would have imposed a longer suspension or fired him. Of course, they make no effort to hide their biases. Their minions like to complain about right-wing news sources, but let’s face it, MSNBC is the left-wing Fox News.

In case you missed Ed Scult’s comments, the audio from his tantrum is below.

Lara Logan of CBS News discusses her experience covering the demonstrations in Egypt.

Online news sites benefit from type-in traffic and links from sites like Yahoo, Google, and the Drudge Report. Once sites require subscriptions, those links will disappear, along with the resulting traffic. What they’ll be left with is a small group of loyal readers willing to pay a reasonable fee for news that they could readily read at one of several free web sites. Let’s also remember that those links provided by news aggregators brought in visitors who clicked ads. When the traffic goes down, the ad revenue will probably follow. After all, do you want to advertise on a site that isn’t viewed much in comparison to its peers?

If you think a subscription model makes sense, and is the wave of the future, I have a scenario for you. What if every news site in the world charged, except one. That site would see a rapid increase in readership, increased ad revenue, and would have lots of interesting ways to monetize their content. The subscription sites? They would probably slowly die one-by-one, until they smartened up and moved back to a free format. Sure it’s a simple example, but it illustrates an important point: As long as there is one free source, readers will flock to it.

Let’s get this straight: Patrick Kennedy thinks the United States should leave Afghanistan and allow it to sink into even greater chaos? Sharp guy.