I'm skipping the attempt at a witty first sentence and going straight to the press release:

Young adults often click away from 2008 election news online because they feel the sites bombard them with too much information and too many choices, according to a new study released by Northwestern University's Media Management Center.

Here's more: The MMC survey of 89 young people between the age of 17 and 22 -- who are eligible to vote for president for the first time in 2008 -- found that while they are interested in the elections and want information about the candidates and issues, they don't want to spend much time following day-to-day developments. However, they do appreciate news sites that help them -- and other new voters -- understand the basics about the candidates, issues and election process.

The big problem, apparently, is the "too muchness" of all that coverage. Specifically:

• Too many things competing for attention, without clues about what is most important;
• Too many details;
• Too wordy; not distilled to the essence;
• Too many choices;
• Too much text, too high a percentage of text to graphics, or a screen of mostly text;
• Site features that they don't immediately understand;
• Pages or stories that go on and on and on.

The study recommends:

• Place huge emphasis on clear, helpful, immediately understandable organization and design that signals what to focus on and conveys the relative importance of offerings on a page. Short, meaningful, compelling headlines are essential.
• Offer content in manageable layers and chunks, letting the reader decide how deep to go. When stories go more than a page, young adults tend to tune out. However, if stories maintain their interest enough to click on a link, the millennials want some substance.
• Have a lot but display a little. It's better for this audience to be selective in what is presented (with links to more information) than to overwhelm with "too much."
• Concentrate most on information resources that help young people (and other new voters) understand the basics about the candidates, the issues and the election process.

Essentially, the study appears to be recommending better editing. But it also sounds like something that new wave band Devo said more concisely many years ago in a fairly popular song:

"Freedom of choice is what you got. Freedom from choice is what you want."

(Yawning boy photo: Reuters)

Nationally syndicated columnist and Huffingtonpost.com co-founder/editor-in-chief Arianna Huffington may not have been a personal supporter of Hillary Clinton for the Democratic party nomination (HuffPost didn't endorse a candidate), but she has kind words for the New York senator and former first lady all the same.

I met Arianna in New York on Tuesday to ask her what she, as the author of a book about women conquering their fears, thought about Clinton's failure to secure the nomination and her political future.

Here's what she said about...

Supporting Obama:

Since this is an election where we are clear that it's in the best interests of the country that (Arizona Republican Senator) John McCain is not president , and we have seen that Obama has a much better chance of defeating John McCain, it's a very clear choice. (With Obama) there's no equivocation. It's the future, getting out of Iraq. It's a dramatically different take on the economy. It's a clear break with the past, which the country's really longing for.

Drawbacks to Clinton:

The two main drawbacks were that she did vote to authorize the war, so it's much harder to oppose the war as categorically as Obama can oppose it, given that he has been against it from 2002... Given now that a vast majority of the American people know the war was wrong, if you knew that from the begining, you'd have a real clear advantage.

On the disappointment of a woman not getting a major party nomination:

Actually you know, I found her speech on Saturday so incredibly important for women because I have written as you know for my "Fearless" book a lot about how a lot of women have held (themselves) back because of the fear of failure. That has been the greatest fear in women. I mean, men have it too, but women, we have it in a much more intense way.

She failed in her immediate goal of winning the nomination, but this was in a way a historic triumph for women, because the question, "Can a woman be commander-in-chief?" will never be asked again. Can a woman run a great campaign, raise money and get millions of votes? All these questions have now been answered, thanks to her race. As a mother of two teenaged daughters, I'm constantly saying to them, always take the risk, go for your dreams. If you fail, it doesn't matter. It's like there is nobody who has succeeded in life who has not failed along the way. (Her speech) was a concession speech but at the same time it was a triumphant speech. I thought it was an incredibly moving, powerful moment for the country and especially for women.

And would she support Hillary in 2012 if she ran again, and the circumstances were right?

Sure. Absolutely.

I also asked why it should be that a woman in the United States still hasn't had a clear shot at becoming a head of state when countries like India, Indonesia, Germany, Chile and Pakistan have pulled it off.

Her answer:

It has more to do with the women who have run... I don't think there is more sexism here than there is in India, for example. If you look at the women who run, there isn't anyone you'd say, "yes, if that person wasn't a woman, they'd absolutely have to be president."

(Photo: Reuters)

News Corp chief Rupert Murdoch has attracted plenty of attention over the years for using his New York Post to batter Democratic Senator, former First Lady and current presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton -- and then warming up to her. But when it comes to the rivalry between her and her challenger, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, either one will do as far as News Corp is concerned.

Here's what Chief Operating Officer Peter Chernin said in Phoenix on Wednesday about the close race between Clinton and Obama:

Putting my personal feelings aside, I believe it's a horse race and I believe it's a tremendous positive for the local television business.

And it's about to get better. Twenty-two states hold contests on Feb. 5, otherwise known as Super Tuesday, and some of those states house News Corp's local television affiliates that are just dying to run some hardball political advertising, Chernin said.

They (the candidates) both have, give or take, $100 million. ... It's a fight to the death between them, and it's hopefully a real positive for the local television stations.

Fight to the death; it's a good thing.

Here's a way to mitigate the widely held perception that the U.S. news media is dominated by the left: Hire former Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, a staunch conservative.

We've reported this previously, but today saw his first column entry for the Philadelphia Inquirer. He started with a catalog of epithets the paper has hurled at him in the past.

Imagine these words next to your name in your high school yearbook - disingenuous, snake oil peddler, smug, arrogant, chicken-livered, intolerant and fatalistic. And most of those labels were in news stories.

My new employer also claimed not so long ago that I "inspire contempt" and "have lost my mind" and that my actions bore a remarkable resemblance to Joe McCarthy's. You know? The namesake of McCarthyism . At the time, I took solace from the implied compliment. At least The Inquirer thought I was making a substantial mark on my generation. Not bad for someone they also called a "doofus ."

Doofus?

Santorum also poked fun at the business case for hiring him: What could have possibly possessed Chris Satullo to invite me to be a columnist shortly before he decided to step down as Editorial Page editor? Maybe it had something to do with his moving on. Other theories range from premature senility to guilt.

Judging from the flood of letters to the paper that followed the announcement, most believe it was a pure business decision to attract more readers. I see: Bring on a writer who got less than 20 percent of the city vote and about 40 percent of the suburban vote in 2006 to expand readership. Shrewd.

Senator, this is the newspaper industry. Good luck!

This is not Chairman Mao's little red Facebook.

People for the American Way, a liberal activist group, has constructed The Right-Wing Facebook for U.S. Republican presidential candidates. (And goes to pains to note that it is satire and not related to the real social network Facebook)

It features profiles of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, actor and retired Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, Arizona Sen. John McCain and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Their status?

Rudy Giuliani is thinking no marriage for gays means more marriage for the rest of us.

Mike Huckabee is thinking he has a lot to offer as number two on a ticket.

John McCain is raiding his kids' piggy banks.

Mitt Romney is trying to remember which one is Tagg...

Fred Thompson is massaging his jowls.

Their networks link to various "friends," mainly the more outspoken members of the GOP such as former presidential candidate Gary Bauer and former Virginia Gov. George Allen. Also check out the candidates' favorite books, movies and so forth. They're just funny enough that we're wondering if someone will do one for the Dems.

(Screen grab from Rudy Giuliani satire page from http://www.rightwingfacebook.org)

Hillary might be the Clinton running for president, but it’s Bill that GQ magazine doesn’t want to lose. Washington D.C.’s new chronicler of wonks, the Politico newspaper, reported that the magazine killed a story on Hillary Rodham Clinton , the New York senator and former first lady who wants to capture the Democratic nomination for U.S. president.From the Politico’s Ben Smith:

Early this summer, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign for president learned that the men’s magazine GQ was working on a story the campaign was sure to hate: an account of infighting in Hillaryland.

So Clinton’s aides pulled a page from the book of Hollywood publicists and offered GQ a stark choice: Kill the piece, or lose access to planned celebrity coverboy Bill Clinton.

Despite internal protests, GQ editor Jim Nelson met the Clinton campaign’s demands, which had been delivered by Bill Clinton’s spokesman, Jay Carson, several sources familiar with the conversations said.

Smith notes that there is nothing new about campaigns providing more access to sympathetic reporters. The difference here, he wrote, is “what sources described as a barely veiled transaction of editorial leverage for access.” And in the case of Joshua Green, the Atlantic Monthly editor who reported the GQ story, the campaign didn’t quite consider him sympathetic based on his past stories.

The Clinton campaign did not reply to our request for comment. Green declined to comment. GQ gave us the statement that it gave Politico, attributed to editor-in-chief Jim Nelson:

I don’t really get into the inner workings of the magazine, but I can tell you yes, we did kill a Hillary piece. We kill pieces all the time for a variety of reasons. Other than that, I don’t have a lot more to add about what’s going or not going into the magazine.

A spokesman for Conde Nast, which publishes GQ, would not comment further, leaving us with one unanswered question: How does an editor-in-chief not get into the inner workings of his magazine?