Last week must have been defend the media week at the Washington Post. In addition to Dana Milbank's piece saying the media plays fair, on March 15 media critic Howard Kurtz, in John Kerry, Media Critic, continued the fantasy. After reading the piece you come away believing that they really don't get it.
Kurtz said Major news organizations tried--not hard enough, in my view--to fact-check the charges and countercharges by both sides. Sometimes journalists were slow--as on the Swift Boat charges--to undertake this work. Most networks aired the candidates' attack ads with only a minimum of truth-squadding. The bogus Kerry Intern rumor spread like wildfire. But there was at least an attempt to hold both sides accountable.
...Hold both sides accountable. Again with the moral equivalence. No respectable news organization would continually equate murder with jaywalking, however in politics its more than acceptable. As Mark Halperin of ABC News pointed out last fall that the Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done
Too many in the media believe that they can not compare candidate's actions so that a small distortion is the same as a series of blatant lies, or that as Kurtz apparently believes, Al Franken is little different than Rush Limbaugh.
Kerry pointed out that "there's a subculture and a sub-media that talks and keeps things going for entertainment purposes rather than for the flow of information. And that has a profound impact and undermines what we call the mainstream media of the country. And so the decision-making ability of the American electorate has been profoundly impacted as a consequence of that."
The Daily Howler recently pointed out that this subculture results in two Americas, that Cable viewers live in one America, newspaper readers in another. And that's the problem. People like Kurtz look at the print media and pronouce fairness abounds. The rest of us look at cable TV and are unsurprised that, as Kerry said, 77 percent of the people who voted for him [Bush] believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.
Kerry said the problem was that the media didn't act as an arbitrator of what was accurate, i.e. examining the issues and point out the facts and also who was lying. The press at times attempted to say what was accurate, but it was beyond them to investigate the dishonest statements on cable. And they wonder why many have lost respect for the media.
They just don't get it.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
They just don't get it
When Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis ran for president in 1988 against the first George Bush, he appeared on Nightline and after an unimpressive response, host Ted Koppel said "I still don't think you get it."
Anyone reading Dana Milbank's March 20th column, My Bias for Mainstream News, which tried to explain how the mainstream media is fair, probably came away thinking "I still don't think you get it."
Just look at what Milbank wrote: Partisans on the left and right have formed cottage industries devoted to discrediting what they dismissively call the "mainstream media" -- the networks, daily newspapers and newsmagazines. Their goal: to steer readers and viewers toward ideologically driven outlets that will confirm their own views and protect them from disagreeable facts.
Perhaps on the right but not on the left. Rather than pushing people away from the MSM, the left's goal has been to shine a light on mistakes on mistakes in hopes that this would help improve the reporting by the mainstream media.
Milbank mentions a survey conducted before the 2004 election that found that 72 percent of Bush's supporters believed that, at the time of the U.S. invasion, Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and that 75 percent believed that Iraq either gave al Qaeda "substantial support" or was directly involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Milbank did point out that It's fine to argue about the merits of the Iraq war, but these views are just plain wrong. However he loses it when he writes Many on the left harbor their own fantasies that they consider fact -- about how Bush knew of 9/11 in advance, or how he was coached during one of the presidential debates via a transmitter between his shoulder blades.
The problem is there are few on the left who truly believe those exact claims. Many may be cynics and believe there is truth to these claims. For example, some might believe, based on the Aug. 6 PDB, Bush might have listened enough to be aware that a memo that says Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US, meant that there could be a terrorist strike in the US in the near future. Does that mean all on the left believe that Bush knew in advance of 9/11 or just that he and Rice knew that Bin Laden would try to strike the US?
To compare 75 percent of Bush supporters believed in the Iraq - al Qaeda connection to an unknown percent having cynical views on 9/11 attacks is ridiculous. To often the press falls victim to this moral equivalence comparison. Last fall ABC News' political director Mark Halperin tried to buck the trend, writing in an internal memo that although both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry distorted the truth, the Bush team went way beyond what Kerry did.
As such, "though both sides need to be held accountable, it doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides equally' accountable when the facts don't warrant that."
It's too bad Milbank didn't get the memo. Anyone reading, watching or listening to right wing rants comes to the conclusion that they are much more over the edge. Unfortunately too many in the media have swallowed the idea that they shouldn't differentiate between political murder and political jaywalking. To them it's all the same.
Apparently they just don't get it.
Anyone reading Dana Milbank's March 20th column, My Bias for Mainstream News, which tried to explain how the mainstream media is fair, probably came away thinking "I still don't think you get it."
Just look at what Milbank wrote: Partisans on the left and right have formed cottage industries devoted to discrediting what they dismissively call the "mainstream media" -- the networks, daily newspapers and newsmagazines. Their goal: to steer readers and viewers toward ideologically driven outlets that will confirm their own views and protect them from disagreeable facts.
Perhaps on the right but not on the left. Rather than pushing people away from the MSM, the left's goal has been to shine a light on mistakes on mistakes in hopes that this would help improve the reporting by the mainstream media.
Milbank mentions a survey conducted before the 2004 election that found that 72 percent of Bush's supporters believed that, at the time of the U.S. invasion, Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and that 75 percent believed that Iraq either gave al Qaeda "substantial support" or was directly involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Milbank did point out that It's fine to argue about the merits of the Iraq war, but these views are just plain wrong. However he loses it when he writes Many on the left harbor their own fantasies that they consider fact -- about how Bush knew of 9/11 in advance, or how he was coached during one of the presidential debates via a transmitter between his shoulder blades.
The problem is there are few on the left who truly believe those exact claims. Many may be cynics and believe there is truth to these claims. For example, some might believe, based on the Aug. 6 PDB, Bush might have listened enough to be aware that a memo that says Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the US, meant that there could be a terrorist strike in the US in the near future. Does that mean all on the left believe that Bush knew in advance of 9/11 or just that he and Rice knew that Bin Laden would try to strike the US?
To compare 75 percent of Bush supporters believed in the Iraq - al Qaeda connection to an unknown percent having cynical views on 9/11 attacks is ridiculous. To often the press falls victim to this moral equivalence comparison. Last fall ABC News' political director Mark Halperin tried to buck the trend, writing in an internal memo that although both President Bush and Sen. John Kerry distorted the truth, the Bush team went way beyond what Kerry did.
As such, "though both sides need to be held accountable, it doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides equally' accountable when the facts don't warrant that."
It's too bad Milbank didn't get the memo. Anyone reading, watching or listening to right wing rants comes to the conclusion that they are much more over the edge. Unfortunately too many in the media have swallowed the idea that they shouldn't differentiate between political murder and political jaywalking. To them it's all the same.
Apparently they just don't get it.
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Where Did that News Scoop Go? To the MSM's Memory Hole
In a recent National Review column, Jonah Goldberg asked whatever happened to the story on the massive cache of explosives that American forces failed to secure after the fall of Saddam Hussein. Goldberg sniffs that "in the final week of the presidential campaign it was The Most Important Story on Earth."
Goldberg notes that The (New York) Times has not run a single story about the al-Qaqaa story since November 1. Nada, bupkis, zilch. So what happened to the story?
Well, the answer is pretty damn simple. Kerry lost the election and that meant the media could go back to its On Bended Knee mode, i.e. not caring about issues. No longer did the media feel obligated to give a half-hearted effort to look into allegations about the Bush administration. No, it was back to typing up administration press releases.
And since the MSM has an attention span of about 30 seconds, Goldberg knew he could regurgitate this story to feed the GOP's daily "Outrage Machine." Knowing he wouldn't be challenged, Goldberg complains that the Times "first broadside" didn't mention that The weapons might have been removed before the invasion.
No, perhaps it wasn't mentioned in the "first broadside." But what Goldberg CONVENIENTLY neglects to mention is that video taken by KSTP of St Paul, Minnesota in mid-April 2003 SUPPORTED the Times' report that the tons of explosives missing from a munitions installation in Iraq were looted AFTER the US invasion and occupation of Iraq.
As the AP reported, A videotape shot by a Minnesota television crew traveling with United States troops in Iraq when they first opened the bunkers at the Al-Qaqaa munitions base nine days after the fall of Saddam Hussein shows what appeared to be high explosives still in barrels and bearing the markings of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
But look at Goldberg's column. Is there any mention of what KSTP found. Of course not!
And oh, by the way, Goldberg isn't the only one wondering what happened. to the story. But questions posed on this issue to the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz Media Backtalk go unanswered. Why? Perhaps rather than being an indication that the Times got the story wrong, the more likely answer is that the MSM doesn't want to upset the Bush administration.
Afterall, remember how Houston Chronicle reporter Bennett Roth was chastised by the administration for asking a question press secretary Ari Fleischer deemed off limits. As Ari put told Roth, it was "noted in the building that I had asked the question." Vice-president Dick Cheney took the strategy one step further and banned New York Times reporters from travelling with him during the campaign.
Perhaps Goldberg, satisfied the press won't actually look into the story, now gets to bash the MSM and he makes it look like the MSM picks on conservatives rather than the truth, which is that most of the time the MSM is a faithful GOP soldier.
Goldberg notes that The (New York) Times has not run a single story about the al-Qaqaa story since November 1. Nada, bupkis, zilch. So what happened to the story?
Well, the answer is pretty damn simple. Kerry lost the election and that meant the media could go back to its On Bended Knee mode, i.e. not caring about issues. No longer did the media feel obligated to give a half-hearted effort to look into allegations about the Bush administration. No, it was back to typing up administration press releases.
And since the MSM has an attention span of about 30 seconds, Goldberg knew he could regurgitate this story to feed the GOP's daily "Outrage Machine." Knowing he wouldn't be challenged, Goldberg complains that the Times "first broadside" didn't mention that The weapons might have been removed before the invasion.
No, perhaps it wasn't mentioned in the "first broadside." But what Goldberg CONVENIENTLY neglects to mention is that video taken by KSTP of St Paul, Minnesota in mid-April 2003 SUPPORTED the Times' report that the tons of explosives missing from a munitions installation in Iraq were looted AFTER the US invasion and occupation of Iraq.
As the AP reported, A videotape shot by a Minnesota television crew traveling with United States troops in Iraq when they first opened the bunkers at the Al-Qaqaa munitions base nine days after the fall of Saddam Hussein shows what appeared to be high explosives still in barrels and bearing the markings of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
But look at Goldberg's column. Is there any mention of what KSTP found. Of course not!
And oh, by the way, Goldberg isn't the only one wondering what happened. to the story. But questions posed on this issue to the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz Media Backtalk go unanswered. Why? Perhaps rather than being an indication that the Times got the story wrong, the more likely answer is that the MSM doesn't want to upset the Bush administration.
Afterall, remember how Houston Chronicle reporter Bennett Roth was chastised by the administration for asking a question press secretary Ari Fleischer deemed off limits. As Ari put told Roth, it was "noted in the building that I had asked the question." Vice-president Dick Cheney took the strategy one step further and banned New York Times reporters from travelling with him during the campaign.
Perhaps Goldberg, satisfied the press won't actually look into the story, now gets to bash the MSM and he makes it look like the MSM picks on conservatives rather than the truth, which is that most of the time the MSM is a faithful GOP soldier.
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
Million Dollar Outrage
The shallowness of conservatives' complaints against modern society and its extreme dependency on the Outrage Machine to stay in power was on display on Sunday at the 77th Annual Academy Awards show where Million Dollar Baby collected several Oscars.
Prior to the announcement of Oscar nominations, conservatives signaled that they would be outraged if Fahrenheit 9/11 (winner of the People's Choice Award as Favorite Movie) received nominations. When Fahrenheit 9/11 was left off the list of Oscar nominees, many on the right breathed a sigh of relief and possibly stopped listening to the Outrage Machine.
And without the Outrage Machine serving as a thought minder, people are able to think for themselves and make decisions on their own. As a result people I knew, who last fall had bought into the Outrage Machine, went to Million Dollar Baby with an open mind and ended up liking the movie.
Not knowing they should be outraged by the movie, they weren't, and if fact considered those who brought up the Outrage Machine talking points to be out of touch with reality. Without the thought minders telling them that they should be outraged they weren't. Given the freedom to think for themselves, they thought and weren't outraged.
This is both encouraging and discouraging. Knowing that the conservatives’ hold on power relies on making people outraged against their will shows the weakness of conservatives’ arguments. However conservatives, through talk radio and talk TV, has built an extensive Outrage Machine that, when running, is difficult to counter.
Prior to the announcement of Oscar nominations, conservatives signaled that they would be outraged if Fahrenheit 9/11 (winner of the People's Choice Award as Favorite Movie) received nominations. When Fahrenheit 9/11 was left off the list of Oscar nominees, many on the right breathed a sigh of relief and possibly stopped listening to the Outrage Machine.
And without the Outrage Machine serving as a thought minder, people are able to think for themselves and make decisions on their own. As a result people I knew, who last fall had bought into the Outrage Machine, went to Million Dollar Baby with an open mind and ended up liking the movie.
Not knowing they should be outraged by the movie, they weren't, and if fact considered those who brought up the Outrage Machine talking points to be out of touch with reality. Without the thought minders telling them that they should be outraged they weren't. Given the freedom to think for themselves, they thought and weren't outraged.
This is both encouraging and discouraging. Knowing that the conservatives’ hold on power relies on making people outraged against their will shows the weakness of conservatives’ arguments. However conservatives, through talk radio and talk TV, has built an extensive Outrage Machine that, when running, is difficult to counter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)