« Green Roofs | Main | Kabuki: In a Good Way » Our Trivial Media08 Jun 2007 03:19 pm
"In Tuesday’s Republican presidential debate, Mitt Romney completely misrepresented how we ended up in Iraq," writes Paul Krugman, "later, Mike Huckabee mistakenly claimed that it was Ronald Reagan’s birthday." He then challenges us to guess which error The Washington Post described as the gaffe of the night. The answer, of course, is obvious. Brian Beutler speculates a bit as to why newspapers cover these things that way. At this point, I'm beyond wondering why. Comments (26)
In fairness to Huckabee, modern conservative ideology demands that every day be Ronald Reagan's birthday. 
How do we change it? You're a member of the media... I assume you know a lot of people working in it. What do you think it would take for a turnaround? We really don't ask much... just that politicians shouldn't be allowed to make blatantly false factual claims without being called on them. Isn't that reasonable? How could the Post possibly defend mentioning the birthday but not the inspector thing? (Actually, I suspect that the reason this "gaffe" wasn't covered by the media was that most members of the media had honestly forgotten that Bush kicked the inspectors out of Iraq... which is also rather appalling.)
ap, as you suggest, most national reporters are surprisingly ill-informed about substance. when you add (pace a separate matthew posting) that most national reporters aren't trained to spot weak points in arguments....
If I were a journalist, I swear, I'd rip off bloggers day after day. If there was a debate, I'd look at what the lefty and righty bloggers are focusing on, I'd check to be sure they had it right, and then I'd triumphantly announce that such-and-such was the big deal coming out of the debate. There's a marketplace effect in the blogosphere. There are so many blogs that one of them is bound to identify the most salient point relating to any topic, and that person is going to get lots and lots of links. Even if you're no good at spotting major issues for yourself, all you have to do is follow the blogs.
This is an old problem, actually. Mark Hertzgaard (sp?) had a book out in the 80's called "On Bended Knee" which was about how the press let Reagan get away with saying anything. This also came up on some recent television show about the press (maybe Moyers). As I vaguely recall, in the beginning of Reagan's Presidency the press would fact-check his claims and there were complaints about the "liberal" media picking on our President, and so the fact-checking stopped. Anyway, the theory is that the press is more sensitive to criticism from the right and so they lean over backwards to let them get away with stuff.
steve, i agree with your point: i think of political blogging as the canary in the coal mine in terms of issues and talking points. i actually suspect we'd see what you suggest taking place if so many of the journalists weren't so thin-skinned about what they hear about themselves on blogs....
My question is, why don't we use this stuff better. Lets not forget that Al Gore was taken DOWN by messing up the fact that he didn't travel to a disaster with American hero, James Lee Witt. He had in fact traveled to more than 5 disasters with Witt...but just not that one.
I'd look at what the lefty and righty bloggers are focusing on, I'd check to be sure they had it right I don't think journalists have considered that part of the job description for some time now.
Yeah, sure, who cares why. It hardly matters. Could it be, perhaps, that by focusing on trivia (which they are capable of understanding), major media have more power to influence elections in ways that suit them? Bush lied his way through every debate in 2000, but Gore sighed. What did the media focus on?
My brother says: Go read _The Boys on the Bus_...
The press gets hysterial when they catch a politician lying about a trivial matter. If Romney had lied about smoking pot in college the press would have gone insane. They would have declared that he had a character problem. The same press yawns when politicians lie about important policy matters. They simply don't care.
"Anyway, the theory is that the press is more sensitive to criticism from the right and so they lean over backwards to let them get away with stuff." This is true. Reporters fear the Right Wing Noise Machine. They fear being targeted by Rush/FOX/Drudge. Look what happened to Dan Rather. The left does not have its noise machine. So reporters don't worry about offending liberals. How can the liberals retaliate? They don't have a noise machine to demonize reporters and destroy their careers. As a result reporters fear offending conservatives. They don't fear offending liberals. Look at Jeff Gerth. His sloppy reporting launched the mother of all witchunts against a Dem president. His charges turned out to be bogus. He should be in journalistic exile. Instead he has a million dollar book deal. If he done to a GOP president what he did to a Dem president the Right Wing Noise Machine would have lynched him.
BTW, here is the Paul Krugman column MY mentioned. http://donkeyod.wordpress.com/2007/06/07/lies-sighs-and-politics/
"Could it be, perhaps, that by focusing on trivia (which they are capable of understanding), major media have more power to influence elections in ways that suit them?" That's the point, isn't it. Sometimes I think the whole thing is a big conspiracy by media giants. Keep the country distracted with Brangelina/Anna Nicole/Paris so that the Powers Can Be can rob, steal, scheme without the public knowing about it. Increasingly the corporate media's goal is not to inform but to distract from the real news.
Speaking of how the Washington Post covers issues, let's not forget this front page agitprop from Monday: "Backers of Immigration Bill More Optimistic "After a week at home with their constituents, the Senate architects of a delicate immigration compromise are increasingly convinced that they will hold together this week to pass an overhaul of the nation's immigration laws, with momentum building behind one unifying theme: Today's immigration system is too broken to go unaddressed." The Post badly made a fool of itself with its desire to slam through the Kennedy-Bush bill. It showed how remarkably out-of-touch big media is with popular opinion.
after seeing steve sailer's position i feel quite icky about my indifference to the current immigration bill, but i must note that jonathan weisman has a long and illustrious record (going back to when he wrote about economics and first ignited prof delong's righteous indignation with his misunderstandings) of shoddy reporting of the first rank.
Uh...find me a single (real) conservative that gives a crap about Paris Hilton or Anna Nicole Smith. The news media have only one mandate: ratings. They report whatever will bring them the most viewers among the "prime demographic," (in other words, the people who spend money on the products that advertisers pay big money to solicit). The so-called "mainstream" media have alienated the "prime" part of the prime demographic with one-sided (particularly left-sided) reporting. So they're left with only the MTV/Reality TV audience and senior citizens (in large part social Democrats). By reporting on this pop culture crap, the media is pandering to that crowd. I dare you to find a single one of them that claims to be conservative or Republican. If any of them do, take a look at their lifestyle compared to the generally conservative lifestyle. They're not conservative. The "mainstream" media's ratings have tanked in recent years as alternative news sources have risen to prominence giving the real informed America better options than the decidedly liberal media. So they are playing to the only audience they have left. I find it ironic that you people are not happy with the media, since its people from your side of the socio-political equation that are at the heart of the problem. They're certainly not playing to the conservatives. And get off the lock-step "Romney lied about Iraq" smear campaign. If it had any weight, don't you think the Democrats would be pouncing on it? Of course; but they can't because they have consistently agreed (until the last few months) that Iraq did not cooperate well enough, and that we were justified in using force against them, regardless of UN approval. How else do you explain the overwhelming vote of support?
well, ryan, considering you spout nothing but right-wing approved babble, it's quite amusing that you think you are part of the "real informed America." in fact, you know nothing.
If any of them do, take a look at their lifestyle compared to the generally conservative lifestyle. They're not conservative. I love the suggestion that successful, well-to-do conservatives live lifestyles reminiscent of Ma and Pa Kettle. Gosh, is Newt Gingrich conservative? Heck, the people I know who live "conservative lifestyles," including myself, are all liberals.
"And get off the lock-step "Romney lied about Iraq" smear campaign. If it had any weight, don't you think the Democrats would be pouncing on it?" How can they? They don't own 800 radio stations. They don't have their own cable network. They don't have their own WSJ/NY Post/Moonie Times. Liberals don't have a noise machine comparable to the Right Wing Noise Machine. If Romney had been a Democrat the Right Wing Noise Machine would have covered it 24/7 and forced the MSM to cover it as well. Re; Anna Nicole/Paris The goal is distraction. Corporate media wants to distract the public so that people are ignorant of what their govt is doing.
"If any of them do, take a look at their lifestyle compared to the generally conservative lifestyle." Like Rudy? A serial adulterer on his third marriage? Like Fred Thompson? Married to a trophy wife? Like Newt? Like Delay? Like O'Reilly? Like Brit Hume? Like Rush Limbaugh?.........
"By reporting on this pop culture crap, the media is pandering to that crowd. I dare you to find a single one of them that claims to be conservative or Republican. If any of them do, take a look at their lifestyle compared to the generally conservative lifestyle. They're not conservative." When Anderson Cooper complained about the media focusing on Anna Nicole, it was FoxNews who attacked him. It's conservative commentators who talk about how much better the People's Choice Awards are than the Oscars because they're more populist and democratic. Was the NYT being liberal when Judith Miller helped sell the war, obsessing over Whitewater or when attacking Wen Ho Lee? You don't see the MSM obsessing over the details of single-payer or the Mumia Abu-Jamal case. You don't see tons of updates on Tibet or something.
Rebuttals all around! Howard: That's the extent of your argument? You'll have to do much better than that. Steve: Who said anything about Ma and Pa Kettle? What I said, in essence, was that Hollywood worship is not a conservative issue--that's liberal domain. So if the media is gushing extensively about celebutards like Paris Hilton, it's to please the crowd that worships such...i.e. liberals. And who are you kidding? You don't live a conservative lifestyle. You admit to being a liberal, which means you espouse liberal social agendas; therefore, you do not live a conservative lifestyle. DonB: Thank you for helping to make my point. The media is a free market (like all American business should be). Its driven by profit; profit comes from sales; sales come from advertising to the viewers who then buy the stuff advertised. Ergo: the more viewers, the more sales, the more profit. Economics 101. The liberals have made their attempts at radio networks, newspapers, and TV networks. They have four of the loudest "noise machines" on the air--ABC, CBS and NBC--and in print--the New York Times, not including sister papers and stations. With the rise of alternatives, however, the people are speaking loud and clear: they're not buying anymore from the MSM. AirAmerica is a perfect example, with FoxNews as the contrast. It's not like the liberal voice hasn't had a home on the air, in fact it has had the only voice for so long, the growing majority of people are done with them (as evidenced by their falling readership and ratings...again, see AirAmerica). You honestly think that if Hillary Clinton wanted go on the attack about Romney's comment she wouldn't have every major news outlet in the country reporting on it? You're drunk. The truth is she can't go on the attack because she'd get crushed by her own positions. She's working very hard to keep those positions out of the people's memory, so the last thing she can do right now is bring attention to it. Also, we're talking about the audience, man, not the commentators. And are you really questioning Fred Thompson's conservatism on the grounds that he has a hot wife? Dude, you are a liberal (all "noise" and no reason). Reality Man: So man references, so few citations. Those are all favorite liberal arguments, using the same liberal tactics: refer to this or that story, but conveniently omit the actual citations so no one can verify the claims. Nice try, man. Let's face it: you guys are all wrong and you can't get around it, so you scream and whale about unfair treatment and yadda yadda. Talk about a noise machine.
I think Al Gore is making a serious tactical misjudgment by using Paris and Britney as his examples of the media's trivialities, and much of the liberal blogosphere is doing the same. Matt's post criticized the political coverage in a major newspaper. This has nothing to do with Paris Hilton-- I can't imagine there was more than one article about her in the Post, and even if there was, it doesn't stop Dan Balz from mentioning Romney's gaffe in his debate coverage-- but the very first comment is about her and the thread devolves into a silly argument where both sides are making very dumb claims. Yes, the wall-to-wall Hilton news coverage is silly, but Ryan's right that it's driven by ratings and not dark conspiracies (though he's wrong that this is a liberal phenomenon, because Fox News spent just as much time on her as everyone else did). The Paris problem is a problem mainly with the medium of television, and using it as our main example ignores the deeply dysfunctional political coverage in newspapers and on the radio. (Of course, Al Gore's best wide-ranging example of media dysfunction would have been the coverage of himself, but I guess he had his reasons for deciding against that.)
PS- The real triviality problem in the political media exists in the prevailing culture and composition of the Gang of 500. Many prominent members of this class are very dumb, very shallow, and very rich, and their coverage reflects that. Use Dowd and Matthews as your examples, not Britney and Paris.
Comments closed June 22, 2007. |
Search
Subscribe to this blog by Email Books by Matthew Yglesias
Recent Comments
Recent Posts
Weekly Archives
Categories
|
Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
| 
Heads in the Sand
But Paris Hilton just got sent back to jail! Now that's real news.
Posted by Glenn | June 8, 2007 3:43 PM