Okay, let's start with a pet peeve: journalists who "blog." I put that in quotes because I doubt that a journalist can really blog. It's a different skill set, with some overlaps. But the dead-tree guys saw that there was something called blogging that seemed to be drawing eyeballs, so they decided they'd better do it too. The real problem is that it's a conflict of interest. If I'm going to write something that I want others to see, I usually post it here. There are a few exceptions, but not many. It's the job of the professional journalist (i.e., somebody who's getting paid for that sort of thing) to provide printable matter for her employer. Those employers are now extending their demands to something they call blogs. So how does a journalist decide where to place her material - in a regular article or in a blog? A few rather nicely add bits that wouldn't fit in the article into their "blogs." That looks sort of like what I do. And of course, they're always article-whoring. Probably a condition of their contracts. Inspiration for this rant here.
And, as I've said many times before, it's hard enough to get the explanations of climate change right.
I picked up the Jihadica piece the other day, but I don't understand the players well enough to comment. But Marc Lynch does. If you like convoluted plots, click through to the Jihadica post.
The Australians are getting cocky about their role in nuclear disarmament. They claim that at one of their meetings, representatives from Iran and Israel spent some time talking to each other. Needless to say, Iran and Israel deny any such indiscretions. But they would do that no matter what the case. (LA Times, NY Times, Ha'aretz)
Errol Morris parts 3 and 4.