« Just Gas? | Main | Iftar »

God Forbid We Tell Them!

07 Oct 2007 12:27 pm

I broke with habit and watched Tim Russert's show today. After he finished his interview with John Edwards he brought on a panel of pundits since who wants to hear from presidential candidates when you could listen to journalists talking to each other. We had Russert, David Broder, Margaret Carlson, Ted Koppel, and David Brody -- not bad as far as these things go. Eventually, someone -- either Russert or Koppel -- noted that the New York City press, which knows Rudy Giuliani much better than the national press corps, has been full in recent months of hard-hitting coverage that substantially undermines the narrative Giuliani is trying to create about his own campaign.

This, it seemed to me, was an interesting topic for a national broadcast television show. Maybe these worthy panelists would inform their audience of these pieces of information known to New Yorkers, and resolve to bring this information to their audiences at Time, The Washington Post, NPR, CBN, and the various General Electric-owned media properties.

Sorry, just kidding. It didn't occur to me for a minute that they would do this. And, indeed, they didn't. Instead, they went meta and had a brief discussion of why it is that these accurate accounts of Giuliani's record and personal behavior "don't penetrate." And, of course, they never considered the possibility that their own failure to report on these accurate portrayal's of Giuliani's record and personal behavior might play any role in it. Instead, they concluded that his Powers of 9/11 Awesomeness must just be too great for the truth the penetrate. They were, however, willing to be scathingly critical of Fred Thompson for saying "Soviet Union" went he meant "Russia."

Share This

Comments (40)

You've gone even more meta of course :P

lol teevee

The other totally bizarre part about Meet the Press today was none of the panelists mentioned the Evangelical bailout on Guiliani. No matter what you think about it, it is a significant development as far as Republican presidential politics go. I couldn't believe that Margaret Carlson kept saying with a straight face that Guiliani will do well among social conservatives without even acknowledging Dobson's pronoucement.

Wow. What a vapid discussion. Russert is such a goober.

One of the best ways to fight the (MSM) power is to make them look bad by doing the job they should be doing but aren't. That might shame some of them into actually doing their job.

For instance, some people are willing to go to campaign appearances and ask what are (to them) good questions:

youtube.com/watch?v=UjALSwmmheo

Needless to say, videos like that aren't going to work due to the conspiratorial nature of most of the questions, but at least they tried.

Perhaps MattY could send out a message to the mailing list asking his compadres to encourage their readers to do something similar, although with better questions. Then, you upload the response to Youtube. If MattY doesn't want to do real reporting himself, at least he could encourage others to try it.

For instance, here's a tightly-focused question for Rudy:

youtube.com/watch?v=ElAvo8EM4uk

And, here's one for Huck:

youtube.com/watch?v=T5Dp7FaKIJo

How many IQ points do you have to trade in to join that club, I wonder?

"How many IQ points do you have to trade in to join that club, I wonder?"

When you get down into the single digits, and a thin line of drool is hanging off your chin, you'll know you're there.

How many IQ points do you have to trade in to join that club, I wonder?

-12

How many IQ points do you have to trade in to join that club, I wonder?

Oops misread your question. The correct answer is: All of them.

You give the discretionary ability of the media, too much credit, late into 1996; a sizable percentage didn't know Dole was a WW2 vet; must
have have been a thresher accident, that claimed
his arm I guess.

We here in NYC remember him when he was running around the city trying to close down art exhibits he didn't like. A pint-sized Mussolini. He simply cannot be president.

Be fair: Before 9/11, Giuliani was hard at work protecting New Yorkers... by trying to ban ferrets as housepets.

Who in the world didn't know that Bob Dole lost the use of his arm in the War? At one point in the whole mishegoss, it was the only thing I did know about him and it remains one of the maybe three things I remember reliably about him now.

I used to know a lot of journalists for TV networks and major newspapers and none were all that bright. And I'm not, either. The CEOs that I interviewed were all much smarter than me and my colleagues. There's just a sense that you have when someone is really, really smart.

What's more, the people who got the best jobs weren't even the best of us from a journalistic standpoint. What they were good at was office politics and kissing ass.

So, you know, it's not a great talent pool to begin with and the best go write books. They don 't get high-paying TV gigs.

Matt --

Can you really be this obtuse? Don't get me wrong, I've been reading you for years, and enjoying you insights very much. But, please, can we get past the obligatory sneer about how we don't need to be watching a bunch of TeeVee political pundits talking to each other?

Listen, I got rid of my TeeVee a few months ago, because I realized I was wasting way too much time trying to "keep up" with the news. But . . . back when I did watch the Sunday Talking Heads Shows the only thing I really was interested in was the panel segments, what the political pundits were talking to each other about.

Not because I thought what they said had any substantive value, but because they were letting me know -- ahead of time, right out in public -- what the next week's story line was going to be.

And now I read a column deploring the fact that these media elite won't talk about how they shape the story, and you have to introduce it by sneering about how the media elite "shape the story." C'mon . . . talk about getting "meta" . . . watching what the media will and will not discuss is the only reason to watch to Sunday Shows.

Matt --

Can you really be this obtuse? Don't get me wrong, I've been reading you for years, and enjoying you insights very much. But, please, can we get past the obligatory sneer about how we don't need to be watching a bunch of TeeVee political pundits talking to each other?

Listen, I got rid of my TeeVee a few months ago, because I realized I was wasting way too much time trying to "keep up" with the news. But . . . back when I did watch the Sunday Talking Heads Shows the only thing I really was interested in was the panel segments, what the political pundits were talking to each other about.

Not because I thought what they said had any substantive value, but because they were letting me know -- ahead of time, right out in public -- what the next week's story line was going to be.

And now I read a column deploring the fact that these media elite won't talk about how they shape the story, and you have to introduce it by sneering about how the media elite "shape the story." C'mon . . . talk about getting "meta" . . . watching what the media will and will not discuss is the only reason to watch to Sunday Shows.

Since it's clear that our media elites aren't getting the job done, and all the network news shows are suffering, I'm proposing a major change in format to all broadcast television. My proposal will solve both problems at the same time!

Here it is: all talking-head news shows will be mashups with viewer-participation popularity contests, like "American Idol" meets "Fear Factor" crossed with "the weakest link."

Each member of the press roundtable will have a corresponding toll-free phone number, and during pre-determined breaks in the show, viewers can call in and vote for who they think is most irritating or vapid.

Then when the show resumes, the talker who recieves the most viewer votes will be handcuffed to their chair, and then put in a cage with a hungry / territorial / antisocial wild animal. Think hippopotamus or crocodile or maybe even a pack of dingos.

And then the talk show can resume, until the next break, when viewers get to vote again. With the credits, they can roll clips of Mary Matalin being trampled by wildebeast or the puma eating Bob Novak's diseased liver. And at the end of the show, anyone who hasn't been killed and eaten is released, and then we do it all again next week.

whEn kan Rudee BeE PrEZdeNT of nINE eeleAVen fOR eVAH?


-

I wish I had the courage to just tune to C-SPAN and twist the knob off. But with SoutEastConference football in full swing and the WorldSeries coming up I'm a jellyfish.

Matt: Graeme's comment at the top is wry, which I suppose is appropriate given the type of blog you run here -- quick hits, few links per post, no engagement with commenters.

For what it's worth, you're a gatekeeper, too. If you think it's important for people to read what the New York media, who know Giuliani best, have been writing about him, why not take the extra 45 minutes to dig up some links and post them? It would put some substance behind this meta snarking.

I must say I watched that discussion as well, just to see what kind of crap they would spew. But even someone as cynical as I could not have envisioned such a "discussion". The media inside the beltway really don't understand the country or politics anymore, but they understand how to get a good meal from a meal ticket.

If a bomb went off in the MTP green room earlier, there would be a measurable increase in the IQ of the Village.

It wouldn't be a huge increase, but it would be measurable.

The Beltway pundits aren't isolated and shut-off, they are simply doing their assigned, arranged job of LYING, DISTORTING and OMITTING the news in order to hide Truth from The Public.

They KNOW exactly what they are doing.

They are not stupid or incompetent.

They are AWARE of what they are doing and saying and omitting and twisting and re-shaping.

They are evil liars upholding an agenda,
nothing more.

I mean, come on, these people are sophisticated,
highly-educated professionals.

I refuse to make excuses for any of them anymore.

They absolutely, surely, know what
they are doing & what they are part of.

Face it----They are rotten people.

It was even worse than you describe. Didn't Margaret Carlson even misunderstand what Punkin Head meant, and think the question was 'why all the GOOD things Rudy did on 9/11 aren't getting out to the people?' Honestly, for some masochistic reasons of my own I watch MTP every week and that was the most inane discussion yet.

This reminds me of the anecdote Katie Couric recently related to the Press Club.

Sitting in hair and makeup, or wherever, for the Today show, she pondered in early 2003, silently, to herself "gee, I wonder if anyone is going to try to stop these guys?"

And then we got some sort of recipe for chicken salad, or something.

Mike Malloy says this about Bush, and I'm convinced the MSM is in on it, too:

They are liars, they are thieves, they are murderers. In cahoots, up to the fucking hilt.

Mike Malloy says this about Bush, and I'm convinced the MSM is in on it, too:

They are liars, they are thieves, they are murderers. In cahoots, up to the fucking hilt.


So what hard hitting coverage is out there from the NYC press? What articles? Can you link to some, or is it just more interesting to talk about how the media won't spread those stories?

We had Russert, David Broder, Margaret Carlson, Ted Koppel, and David Brody -- not bad as far as these things go.

Good Christ. It's like the cast of a zombie flick!

I only hear snippets of the Sunday gasfests on the car radio, on C-SPAN, and that sporadically. My favorite part is how utterly pretentious and ominous and important and throbbing the intro music is; after they play that the shows really go downhill fast. I can't imagine anyone watching them all the way through. But the bits I've heard have been just the main gasbag asking inane questions of some paid Beltway liar -- one on one things, palatable in tiny doses. What MY's describing is almost a singularity of hackitude. We're lucky the universe didn't suck itself up into its own asshole.

Nell makes the point I was trying to make between the lines (err...line) of my comment:

Most of us haven't been following giuliani's coverage in the NY press but might be interested in reading an article of the sort you described.

Unless of course you yourself are in ignorance of these sort of things, and were counting on Russert and Co. to inform you as well.

But seriously, I've noticed that sort of meta-uselessness in the media, and find it rather annoying. Led me to cancel my subscription to Newsweek.

"not bad as these things go"? - WTF? that panel was an abomination. at least on the traiterous dwarf hour over on ABC they had katrina van den heuvel. not a liberal amongst those meet the whores gasbags. and can we just point out that margaret carlson has no business opining on the prez campaign because of her (ahem) conflict of interest over losing hollywood fred to jeri jugs not to mention her pathological hatred of all things clinton. oh yeah, they all have a pathological hatred of all things clinton. par for the course...

"not bad as these things go"? - WTF? that panel was an abomination. at least on the traiterous dwarf hour over on ABC they had katrina van den heuvel. not a liberal amongst those meet the whores gasbags. and can we just point out that margaret carlson has no business opining on the prez campaign because of her (ahem) conflict of interest over losing hollywood fred to jeri jugs not to mention her pathological hatred of all things clinton. oh yeah, they all have a pathological hatred of all things clinton. par for the course...

Well, Nikto pretty much sums it up for me, although some of those turds could be that stupid as well.

Of course the point about them actually telling us or, god forbid, letting the actual people tell us, applies to pretty much everything that is done by the national media, with some exceptions, mostly printed.

Details aren't the point with the pundits, how to purge them from our midst is the real question.

I say I won't watch but I do. The panel on MTP and ABC did not surprise. Nothing seems to faze the Dean. He has been subject to some tough criticisms but, like the Decider, he is of a mind to ignore all criticism. Too late to learn, I guess.

Matt: I think it is important to watch these shows and publish comments. These people have to have their cw scrutinised. I can hear bullshit as soon as it is spouted. So critiques in the blogworld matter.

Watched Russert interview Matthews. That was by accident as I don't see CNBC as rule. What a joke. Two good buddies: not a probing question. All smiles and good fellowship. Pushing a pal's book. What a contrast to Matthew's evisceration by John Stewart on a comedy show. That's where the real political debates take place: on a comedy show!!!!

Since it's clear that our media elites aren't getting the job done, and all the network news shows are suffering, I'm proposing a major change in format to all broadcast television. My proposal will solve both problems at the same time!

Here it is: all talking-head news shows will be mashups with viewer-participation popularity contests, like "American Idol" meets "Fear Factor" crossed with "the weakest link." "
Posted by tekel | October 7, 2007 3:39 PM

Tekel, that idea is completely awesome. It's real television. it's what people want.

They KNOW exactly what they are doing. They are not stupid or incompetent. They are AWARE of what they are doing and saying and omitting and twisting and re-shaping.

Dimly perhaps. Let's not forget, though, that They are well-paid, and wealthy people don't have to care. Like the bomber pilot who muses, every once in a while, "Boy, it must suck down there," America's punditry cruise in a rarefied stratum where the consequences of their chattering are nearly invisible. Does anyone believe that Chris Matthews spends as much time researching segments as he does in the make-up chair?

Sure, Matt's a gatekeeper, too. But if you're reading him, chances are you already know what he's talking about. Maybe that's a problem.

if you're reading him, chances are you already know what he's talking about. Maybe that's a problem.

Matt's readership extends beyond people who already know what he's talking about, which is part of the meaning of 'gatekeeper'.

The kind of complaint this post makes cries out for a little constructive counter-measure, just as Tristero's recent complaint at Digby's about progressive rhetoric cried out for a concrete example of what he did want to see said. Pure complaint gets old fast; meta meta complaints are really not worth the time it takes to type them up.

I might be naive, but I tend to think that if Giuliani gets the Republican nomination that the big dailies and the networks and the newsmags will start to rattle all the skeletons in his closet.

Of course it won't be the David Broders or the Margaret Carlsons doing these stories. It'll be the campaign beat reporters and the investigative reporters producing these stories, as it probably should be. Then the Broders and the Carlsons can go back on MTP and talk about the impact of the latest revelations about Giuliani on the narrative. That's why they get the big bucks.

Why isn't the national press doing these stories now? Well, let's not forget that the election is still a year away and Giuliani is not the nominee. Right or wrong, I think there's a reluctance to bring that level of reporting scrutiny to one primary candidate because it raises fairness questions.

Also consider that maybe it's not so terrible that all the Giuliani dirt isn't being aired right now. If the Times took a great big dump on Giuliani right now, then everything they uncovered would seem like "old material" a year from now when we really want it to sink in with the mythical average voter, when it really matters.

Another good example of this was on Russert's saturday show "Tim Russert". He was interviewing Chris Matthews (keeping it in the family) and asked Chris if the media focused too much on Al Gore's "sigh" and if that impacted the election. Chris said now because "before the debates Gore was up by 3 pts, after the debates, Bush was up by 3pts. The public obviously saw something they liked about Bush and not about Gore." Of course, there was no mention by either that the relentless complaining by pundits like Chris about the sigh might have caused some of that switch.


Comments closed October 21, 2007.

Copyright © 2007 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.