Standards

There's been something a bit odd about scanning the news all day and seeing all these accounts of media people lecturing the audience that, contrary to the opinions of the people who watched the debate last night, that the performance of the debate moderators was, in fact, very good. If voters don't think the debate focused on important, interesting topics, then too bad for them! If voters don't think the debate was informative, then too bad for them! The press, once again, gives itself a standing ovation and that's what matters.

On an unrelated note, I've been in about a million conversations navel-gazing conversations about the decline of "old media" like newspapers, magazines, and network television and never once has anyone suggested that declining audience might be in any way related to the quality of the product. Everyone knows that it's the public's duty to read newspapers, whether they find them useful and informative or not.

Comments

It's not so much the declining value of the product, which has sucked ass for years and years, as the rising value of alternative products.

Posted by Bill | April 17, 2008 6:41 PM

It's like the people need to be told what is good for them.

You're FREE - to do as we tell you.

Posted by nattyb | April 17, 2008 6:50 PM

Actually, Tom Shales at the Washington Post had a scathing denunciation of Charlie Gibson, George Step and ABC News's performance last night.
See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/17/AR2008041700013.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

By contrast, the New York Times seemed unable to recognize news media incompetence because ,well...

Posted by Don Williams | April 17, 2008 6:54 PM

The only *real* newsworthy statement in the entire debate came when Senator Clinton stated flat-out that Iran was seeking materials for their nuclear weapons program.

Perhaps she missed that national intelligence estimate a few months ago, which said that Iran’s nuclear weapons program was scrapped years ago?!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/03/iran.nuclear/index.html

Perhaps she forgot how Bush and Cheney were widely mocked and viewed with "here we go again..." disbelief when both of them tried pushing the “Iran is a nuclear threat” spiel right after that report came out in December?

I believe that Hillary Clinton has the kind of proven experience we need to (mis)lead this country into war… again.

Posted by Mark Kraft | April 17, 2008 6:55 PM

It certainly sheds a light on why the Fourth Estate's done such a shitty job of calling the Bush administration out for exactly the same behavior.

Posted by moff | April 17, 2008 6:56 PM

The only *real* newsworthy statement in the entire debate came when Senator Clinton stated flat-out that Iran was seeking materials for their nuclear weapons program.

Perhaps she missed that national intelligence estimate a few months ago, which said that Iran’s nuclear weapons program was scrapped years ago?!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/03/iran.nuclear/index.html

Perhaps she forgot how Bush and Cheney were widely mocked and viewed with "here we go again..." disbelief when both of them tried pushing the “Iran is a nuclear threat” spiel right after that report came out in December?

I believe that Hillary Clinton has the kind of proven experience we need to (mis)lead this country into war… again.

Posted by Mark Kraft | April 17, 2008 6:57 PM

Bill's exactly right. Who watches Charlie Gibson? 62-year-old white folks who can't be bothered with computers. Not exactly a growth market. My dad, who's in his late 70s and is quite net savvy for his age, now gets most of his news online. I suspect he's not exceptional; that if you know how to use the web, you're far more likely to use it as your primary channel for news. It's simply far easier to access good news reporting and commentary online than anywhere else. The traditional 5pm network news broadcast will be a non-viable business in another ten years, if it even takes that long.

Posted by pinson | April 17, 2008 6:58 PM

The only *real* newsworthy statement in the entire debate came when Senator Clinton stated flat-out that Iran was seeking materials for their nuclear weapons program.

Perhaps she missed that national intelligence estimate a few months ago, which said that Iran’s nuclear weapons program was scrapped years ago?!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/03/iran.nuclear/index.html

Perhaps she forgot how Bush and Cheney were widely mocked and viewed with "here we go again..." disbelief when both of them tried pushing the “Iran is a nuclear threat” spiel right after that report came out in December?

I believe that Hillary Clinton has the kind of proven experience we need to (mis)lead this country into war… again.

Posted by Mark Kraft | April 17, 2008 6:59 PM

It's hilarious to see the Obamabots get so upset at the questioning. You could see exactly what is going through their minds: "Thou shalt not question the Messiah!"

To these people, anything other than the fawning praise that Obama normally gets from everyone - especially the media - is complete and utter heresy. And we all know how heretics are treated: Charlie Gibson must be drawn and quartered. George Stephanopoulos must be burned at the stake.

It's also funny that the SNL sketch from way back about the Obama-Hillary debates were exactly on the mark. The normal questions to Obama are like "why do I get a thrill up my leg when I hear you, Barack?" and the Obamabots go completely apesh*t when they see anyone question their guy with anything tougher.

Posted by Al | April 17, 2008 6:59 PM

The audience was booing Gibson at the debate itself. It was already a disaster.

ABC's immediate move was to spin the debate as a bad one for Obama, saying that his performance was "rough" or that he was "hammered" with "difficult questions." From what I saw last night (and clips today), Obama was questioning the questions. That might have made for tedious or uncomfortable moments, but Obama hardly looked intimidated. Stephanapoulos this morning objected, saying that asking questions was his job.

So, the audience didn't like it, the candidate didn't like it, and today, a sweep of Google news will show you that ABC has failed to spin their debate failure. The story is about how much their debate sucked. ABC News just lost.

Two kinds of people liked the debate: FOX News, and Hillary Clinton's camp. That's it.

So, when Matt writes this:

There's been something a bit odd about scanning the news all day and seeing all these accounts of media people lecturing the audience that, contrary to the opinions of the people who watched the debate last night, that the performance of the debate moderators was, in fact, very good.

What I see is the same problem the establishment press had with the "bitter" comment: only the elites thought it was elitist. Once again, the establishment press, or at least ABC and David Brooks, is/are demonstrating that they are irrelevant to the people they keep condescending to.

David Brooks' little piece of autofellatio is, schoolmarmishly appropriately enough, entitled "No Whining about the Media." No one's whining about the media, you mindless hole, they're walking away from it.

Meanwhile, the blondes on FOX "News" are acting like Obama has never endorsed the Rev. Wright "issue." Can someone please explain it to the blondes? WILL SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE BLONDES?!?!?
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | April 17, 2008 7:00 PM

it really is appalling to listen to the established media defending the indefensible. Their overarching justification is that the ad-hominem attacks are part and parcel of politics, and yet they choose to ignore their role as purveyors of such base narratives. Furthermore, though it has been much commented upon, it is both amusing and despairing to witness these wonderfully compensated and cosseted media personalities assume the voice of "regular" folk, maintaining that they are "outraged" or disturbed etc. even as, at best, polls are indeterminate in their findings. They are guilty of the very condescension they decry in the candidates they survey.

Posted by Brett | April 17, 2008 7:01 PM

The only *real* newsworthy statement in the entire debate came when Senator Clinton stated flat-out that Iran was seeking materials for their nuclear weapons program.

Perhaps she missed that national intelligence estimate a few months ago, which said that Iran’s nuclear weapons program was scrapped years ago?!

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/03/iran.nuclear/index.html

Perhaps she forgot how Bush and Cheney were widely mocked and viewed with "here we go again..." disbelief when both of them tried pushing the “Iran is a nuclear threat” spiel right after that report came out in December?

I believe that Hillary Clinton has the kind of proven experience we need to (mis)lead this country into war… again.

Posted by Mark Kraft | April 17, 2008 7:02 PM

The leadin to Tom Shales' article "In PA Debate, the Clear Loser is ABC"

"It was another step downward for network news -- in particular ABC News, which hosted the debate from Philadelphia and whose usually dependable anchors, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos, turned in shoddy, despicable performances. "
-----------
Hee hee hee

Wash Post main web page says Shales article is the one most viewed today.

Posted by Don Williams | April 17, 2008 7:09 PM

The quality of the mainstream media (mainly newspapers and TV) is shit. Pure and simple.

Posted by LeBron4Prez | April 17, 2008 7:11 PM

the Obamabots go completely apesh*t when they see anyone question their guy with anything tougher.

Is this the same Al who didn't watch the debate?

Posted by southpaw | April 17, 2008 7:12 PM

The Reason ABC News is having to defend itself so strongly is that its webs site has been pounded by over 13,000 complaints about the shitty performance last night.

AP put up an article on the storm of criticism hitting Charlie and George:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080417/tv_abc_s_debate.html

An excerpt:
"Greg Mitchell of the trade publication Editor and Publisher said it was "perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate this year."

Posted by Don Williams | April 17, 2008 7:15 PM

Q. Why don't you wear a flag-lapel pin Senator Obama?

A. You know who were big on lapel-pins, arm bands and the like? The National Socialist German Workers Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, NSDAP). You insinuate correctly that I'm not a Nazi.

Posted by Richard | April 17, 2008 7:15 PM

Is this the same Al who didn't watch the debate?

The blondes tell him what to say. That way, he doesn't need to know anything.

Saves time.

Incidentally, Laura Ingraham was pretending that Obama's "dust off" speech, blogged below, was Obama "whining" about the debate.

I guess the blondes don't pay attention much either. Goes a long way toward explaining why the American right can't get thing one right, I guess. Too busy chanting to pay attention.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | April 17, 2008 7:16 PM

Thanks, Mark Kraft, we got it the first time. You can stop now.

Posted by ihateemo | April 17, 2008 7:17 PM

and I think a question that arises is what can be done, because the mediocrity (and that may be too generous a description)of so much of the media is not merely frustrating, but potentially dangerous. A democracy is dependent upon an informed citizenry, and as idealistic a notion as that may be, if the corrosive nature of said media is unchallenged then the nation is imperiled (forgive the grandiosity, but then consider our misadventure in Iraq, the media's complicity, and the thousands upon thousands of lives lost, many of them innocent Iraqi's curiously omitted from the discourse). Isn't this a matter of urgency?

Posted by brett | April 17, 2008 7:22 PM

Drudge, bless his black little heart, has links up to some more critics of ABC news.

Including one in which PA Governor Ed Rendall, a strong supporter of Hillary's, complains that Charlie and George took over an hour to get to any real issues.

Posted by Don Williams | April 17, 2008 7:23 PM

A. You know who were big on lapel-pins, arm bands and the like?

You know who else wasn't wearing lapel pins yesterday?

1. Hillary Clinton

2. John McCain

But this is a problem for Obama because ... well, just because, anyway.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | April 17, 2008 7:23 PM

On an unrelated note, I've been in about a million conversations navel-gazing conversations about the decline of "old media" like newspapers, magazines, and network television and never once has anyone suggested that declining audience might be in any way related to the quality of the product.

Unrelated because ABC had the most watched debate of the season? I didn't even see the debate, I'm just sayin' ABC will be encouraged by the numbers.

Posted by Just Karl | April 17, 2008 7:47 PM

R Don Williams/NYT

What can one expect from a newspaper that wastes editorial page space on a fucking moron like Maureen Dowd. James Reston turns over in his grave every time one of her columns appears in his former paper.

Posted by SLC | April 17, 2008 7:48 PM

Remember, media insiders only like to use a business model to explain their news production when it affords them an opportunity to dismiss criticisms of their journalistic failings as the product of naive idealists.

When you take their business model seriously, and you advocate that news consumers review and critique and make informed purchase decisions about their news products, just like they do about DVD players or washing machines, then suddenly media insiders are less elated about talking about their production of news as a "business".

Posted by El Cid | April 17, 2008 7:59 PM

"Thanks, Mark Kraft, we got it the first time. You can stop now."

No. Matt STILL hasn't gotten it.

Post it again, Mark!

Yes, the most important statements at the debate were how BOTH Obama and Clinton are prepared to go to war with Iran over a NONEXISTENT WEAPONS PROGRAM!

What part of that being EXACTLY LIKE BUSH don't you people get?

Obama would do 'everything' to help Israel defend itself
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080416/pl_afp/usvoteisraeldemocratobama

Money Quotes:

"As president, I will do everything that I can to help (Israel) protect itself ... We will make sure that it can defend itself from any attack, whether it comes from as close as Gaza or as far as Tehran," Obama told a synagogue in Philadelphia, according to his campaign aides.

He said US-Israeli cooperation, although successful, "can be deepened and strengthened."

He also promised that if he were elected president, the United States would continue to veto anti-Israeli resolutions at the United Nations.

Robert Wexler, Florida Democrat in the House of Representatives, told reporters after the meeting that Obama "unequivocally rejects the Palestinian right of return" -- a perennial sticking point in Palestinian-Israeli peace talks -- because he understands that Israel must remain a Jewish state.

And from the Jewish Telegraph Agency:

"Debate Moment: Who’s tougher on Iran?

By Ben Harris on Apr 17, 2008

Last night Barack Obama reminded us why his candidacy gives some in the Jewish community a major case of the willies.

Asked whether he would extend American deterrence to Israel, Obama, carefully crafting his words, promised “appropriate action” in the event of an Iranian attack:

As I’ve said before, I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we — one whose security we consider paramount, and that — that would be an act of aggression that we — that I would — that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action.

When it was Clinton’s turn, she one-upped Obama, promising — twice — “massive retaliation” against Iran. She also laid out a three-point plan that would extend American deterrence to other allies in the region.

You can’t go to the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say: Well, don’t acquire these weapons to defend yourself unless you’re also willing to say we will provide a deterrent backup and we will let the Iranians know that, yes, an attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation, but so would an attack on those countries that are willing to go under this security umbrella and forswear their own nuclear ambitions."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 17, 2008 8:00 PM

"never once has anyone suggested that declining audience might be in any way related to the quality of the product. "

Holy shit. I think you may have something. I wouldn't use the Washington Post to line a bird cage. And my birds ain't too bright. It would still insult their intelligence

Posted by della Rovere | April 17, 2008 8:05 PM

If Obama hasn't promised to move the embassy to Jerusalem he'll be the first presidential candidate since the 70's who didn't.

What people say about Israel running for president has litterally no predictive value on how they will act in office.

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 17, 2008 8:05 PM

I obviously don't have their numbers, but if ABC's viewership didn't drop after the first 40 minutes that everyone is howling about, they likely will take it as vindication that their approach worked as a business model. If forced to choose between polled preference, and revealed preference, choose revealed preference every time.

Posted by Will Allen | April 17, 2008 8:10 PM

All right, three caveats on what I'm about to post. 1) I'm an Obama supporter and don't trust Hillary any further than I can throw her. 2) I didn't actually watch the debate, so what I know about Hillary's comments on Iran, I know secondhand. 3) Nothing I say is to imply that we should rush off and bomb Iran, which would be stupid. That having been said, here goes:

Iran is quite open that it is enriching uranium, with at least several thousand centrifuges. What's questionable is why they want it (they say for peaceful purposes, though they still have no civilian reactors). US Intelligence indicates that they have, probably, suspended the actual bomb-making part of their nuclear program. But Clinton is right to point out that Iran is compiling nuclear materials that they could use in a bomb (after some further refinement), if they wanted to do so. The facts that they've probably halted work on bomb construction, and that they would need to further enrich uranium to make it weapons-grade, mean that they certainly could not do this right away.

All of this should be pretty uncontroversial, but there's some misinformation out there.

Posted by Kraz | April 17, 2008 8:17 PM

network television and never once has anyone suggested that declining audience might be in any way related to the quality of the product.

The Katie Couric fiasco at CBS was a futile attempt to bring in a wider audience. It like trying to re-brand the buggy whip -- let's bring out a line in hot pink.

Posted by Mike | April 17, 2008 8:20 PM

That was directed at Mr. Kraft, by the way.

Posted by Kraz | April 17, 2008 8:21 PM

I'd really have loved it if Obama, when confronted with those garbage questions in last night's debate, had led into a speech reminiscent of Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men: "Now, are these the questions I was really called here to answer? Elitism and flag pins? Please tell me that you have something more, Gibson. These two candidates are here to discuss people's lives. Please tell me their moderator hasn't pinned their hopes to a flag pin."

Posted by Kenneth Fair | April 17, 2008 8:36 PM

Kraz: "All of this should be pretty uncontroversial, but there's some misinformation out there."

And most of it is yours.

There is absolutely no question about why Iran needs a nuclear energy program. They are going to have to expend more of their oil providing their energy needs than they will export within twenty years or so. That means they forego the revenue they need to continue building out their infrastructure to support their growing population. This is not controversial in the slightest. Numerous studies have shown this to be true. It was true back in the 70's when the Shah was in power and started Iran's nuclear power program.

Second, there is absolutely ZERO evidence - except a questionably sourced (read: Mossad/Iranian dissident scam) laptop, that Iran has ever had any nuclear weapons program (as opposed to a nuclear weapons DATABASE program, which probably every military in the world has.)

Third, Iran has every legal right and technical requirement to enrich uranium on its own soil. In fact, the NPT Charter explicitly states that the nuclear nations should be helping it do so.

Fourth, the IAEA has repeatedly established that NOTHING in the Iranian nuclear energy program has been diverted, in the past or the present, to any nuclear weapons program.

Fifth, the only way that Iran could conceivably produce a (i.e., ONE) nuclear weapon would be to withdraw from the NPT, kick out the IAEA inspectors, install considerably more centrifuges than they have or are likely to have for several more years, then spend at least a year or so generating weapons grade material. At any point in this process, it would then be OBVIOUS to everyone that Iran is producing a nuclear weapons, just as it was obvious to everyone when North Korea did it.

At that point and ONLY at that point would it be appropriate to consider sanctions and other options to attempt to prevent Iran from doing so.

And in fact, there is literally nothing in the UN Charter that says the mere production of nuclear weapons is in fact a justification for bombing, invasion or anything else - which is why the UN was reluctant to go along with the US Iraq invasion, despite Iraq having violated a number of previous UN resolutions.

But that is not what Clinton and Obama are saying. They are saying that the mere PRESENCE of a uranium enrichment project in Iran is justification for harsh UN and US sanctions and if those do not succeed (and they will not, as recent articles over at Asia Times establish), they will be willing to consider military action.

And that is both illegal under international law and incredibly fucking stupid.

Once again, Matt has NEVER bothered to answer my two questions, so why don't you take a shot?

1) Do you believe that Iran has a military nuclear weapons program (not a nuclear energy program, a WEAPONS program intended to build and deploy nuclear weapons)?

2) If IN FACT Iran HAS such a program, do you believe that military action is feasible and/or justified in an attempt to prevent Iran from building or deploying nuclear weapons?

My answers, for the record, are "No" and "No".

Matt refuses to answer. How about you?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 17, 2008 8:51 PM

Now, are these the questions I was really called here to answer? Elitism and flag pins? Please tell me that you have something more, Gibson.

Like any good job applicant, Presidential candidates have to answer even the stupidest, most degrading questions with the utmost apparent sincerity and conviction.

Whatever it might pretend be, America is a nation of submissive church ladies who simply cannot abide a person who questions authority.

Posted by James Gary | April 17, 2008 8:55 PM

You know also weren't wearing flag pins last night?

George Asshatolopous and Charlie "the average American makes $200,000" Gibson.

Posted by neilrlca | April 17, 2008 8:56 PM

Grand Moff Texan wrote:
Meanwhile, the blondes on FOX "News" . . .

Can someone please explain it to the blondes? WILL SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE BLONDES?!?!?

The blondes tell him what to say . . .

I guess the blondes don't pay attention much either.

This must be what MY means when he says we "continue to live in a deeply gendered world."

Posted by Mark Adams | April 17, 2008 9:02 PM

You know, it might have increased viewership if ABC had vowed in advance to force Barack Obama to give his clear opinion on a series of "Girls Gone Wild" videos.

A mature news media has to take into account the viewing choices of its audience, after all.

Posted by El Cid | April 17, 2008 9:09 PM

Richard Steven Hack- You make five points, only one of which (the second) at all contradicts what I wrote. If you change where I mentioned "suspending their bomb-making program" to "suspending their bomb-making program, if they had one in the first place, which is debatable" our comments are entirely consistent.

As for your two questions, I think both answers are no. And again, I say that without contradicting anything I wrote earlier.

Posted by Kraz | April 17, 2008 9:17 PM

A few years ago, I read both Ezra and Matthew. Then I realized they were the same person, Kleinyglesias. Then I realized how craptacular, how johnny one note, how smug elitist, how stereotyped, and how you both showed little to no respect for anyone that disagreed with you.

So I stopped reading you and found bloggers with an independent, think for themselves, liberal progressive point of view.

I'll see you again in a few years when you appear on the Washington Post's Op Ed columns with your peers. And then you can line my birdcage.

Posted by anon | April 17, 2008 9:23 PM

So I stopped reading you and found bloggers with an independent, think for themselves, liberal progressive point of view.

Do tell. Inquiring minds want to know.

Posted by blah | April 17, 2008 9:26 PM

Kraz, I don't see how you figure we're consistent, so I have to assume I misread what you wrote originally.

Since you've answered "no" to both questions, I guess we don't have a disagreement.

Unless of course you're relying on the concept that Iran USED to have a nuclear weapons program, which, as I said, is highly unlikely. That IS, however, the dodge that Bush, Cheney, the neocons and the Israelis have been using lately to claim that Iran can restart or actually has restarted said program. You have to understand that there really isn't any real evidence, despite the interest the IAEA has shown in confirming that with the Iranians.

In any event, the important point of my post was that both Obama and Clinton claim their answers are "yes" to both questions, although they try not to be too obvious about it by actually stating it that baldly. Just like Matt likes to take about "proliferation" without ever talking about Iran. Not to mention McCain, of course.

As I've said here before, the only difference between the three is in how fast they will start the war:

McCain, the first six months of his Presidency - he won't even ask Congress for the authority.

Clinton, the first year - only because she'll play at getting Congressional approval - but not UN approval, note.

Obama, the first year and a half to two years - only because he'll play around with "aggressive sanctions" first.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 17, 2008 9:33 PM

To be a successful midlevel corporate man one must first be unaware that your bought and paid for. Russert may be many things but he isn't a fake. He really does think he's the average schmuck from Buffalo. They give him five million a year to be himself, what more proof does he need.

Steph is sort of the same but he's a bit hipper. He's post post modern. He knows he's a spinner but thinks spin is natural, and right. For him irony is ironic.

http://minutemessage.net/sabotage.gif

Posted by rapier | April 17, 2008 9:35 PM

James Gary, I think you are on to something here: "Like any good job applicant, Presidential candidates have to answer even the stupidest, most degrading questions with the utmost apparent sincerity and conviction."

Different nations develop different political customs. As this nation has let the president's power grow to imperial heights, and allowed its ability to determine events as a people be crushed beneath a corporate oligarchy of unbelievable smarminess, it has also increased the "rush" quality - the ritual humiliation - of the presidential process.

Of course, it seems that Democratic candidates have to bear this quality more than Republicans do. But perhaps I'm biased by the last two elections - what candidate was more familiar with, and more delighted by, rushing than our frat boy prince? Which may be why the press didn't dare. They know not to cross that line with Mr. Andover.

I hope, then, Obama has learned something from Hilary. The shots she's taken in bars, the hunting remarks, her willingness to come on like the late Charleston Heston's sidekick about guns - I admire her zest, even, for humiliation. Americans, as I think most people would agree, are a servile people at heart - what other culture has ever licked the boots of the wealthy like this culture? But it is well established motif in farce that the servant is also a prankster, and enjoys humiliating the master if he can get away with it. And so, after a hard day of mouthing platitudes, kissing ass, and tattle tailing at work, and going home to watch some wretched spectacle of abjection, some celebration of cop fascism on tv, there is a moment in which the psyche rebels and wants revenge. Not enough of course to change the power structure, or anything scary like that. The boss might fire you! oh, it would be a tragedy. But enough to want the powerful to fawn a bit.

Obviously, Obama still takes fawning too personally, while Hilary can put it on or take it off. That's a very good trick.

Posted by roger | April 17, 2008 9:37 PM

So I stopped reading you and found bloggers with an independent, think for themselves, liberal progressive point of view.

and yet, here you are.

Posted by Kevin | April 17, 2008 9:40 PM

...declining audience might be in any way related to the quality of the product.

I let my subscription to the Los Angeles Times lapse last year. I had been a subscriber since I moved here in 1983. Before that I lived in the Bay Area, where I subscribed to the Chronicle. I always associated the newspaper as one of the perks of being a grownup. The idea of being without one was unimaginable -- until about two years ago. Then the LA Times got rid of Robert Scheer. Now, I'm not that fond of Scheer -- I respect him more than I like him. But his dismissal signaled a serious rightward shift at the paper. Suddenly, my subscription dollars were helping to underwrite the likes of Max Boot, Jonah Goldberg, and Mallard Fillmore.

I decided I had better things to do with my subscription dollars. I know I'm not the only one who felt that way.

RIP, LA Times. You were dying long before the bloodletting began...

Posted by Roddy McCorley | April 17, 2008 9:46 PM

Gerald Baker on last night's debate:

If you want to know who lost most from this debate you need only look at the ranting reaction of Obama supporters everywhere. Daily Kos, Huffington Post, Andrew Sullivan, all absolutely furious with the debate's moderators for asking supposedly cheap questions, largely directed at Obama. [snip]

Pace the denunciations of the Obamaniacs, I think this sort of testing is exactly what Obama needs. The Obama supporters are furious that there weren't more questions on policy. But we know why there weren't. The two candidates don't fundamentally disagree on any of the big issues. And ask yourself this. Has Obama become the Democratic frontrunner because he has persuaded Democrats his policies would be better than Hillary's? No, I don't think so. He has persuaded them that he is the more electable and the better equipped to put the Democratic case in November. As he becomes the presumptive nominee it seems reasonable to me that he should be ruthlessly examined on all these questions. Tonight he was, and as it happens, though he looked defensive at times, he handled most of the pressure well. He will get a lot more of this from the Republicans in the next six months.

Posted by Fred | April 17, 2008 10:23 PM

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Posted by brett | April 17, 2008 10:25 PM

Megan says it sucks because the market says it has to suck. That making it good is not what the market wants, because the people running the networks know what people want to watch, and that's what they put on. Likewise with newspapers. They suck because the market demands they suck, and they've done careful studies that show that the market demands that they suck. Oh, and their share prices are falling, and their revenue stream is falling, so the market demands that they suck still more. And Glenn Greenwald is stupid to point out that they suck, because, obviously, the sucky stuff they produce is what the market wants, else they wouldn't produce it.

She really does say this.

Seriously.

Posted by jayackroyd | April 17, 2008 10:28 PM

I'd say politics has a lot to do with it too, and about that the media seems to be in some kind of incredible denial. They have been reading the polls all these years that say how much of the public thinks we are going in the wrong direction -- up in the 80 percentile now, I think -- and it must be a struggle for them to keep maintaining the false notions of what the "mainstream" is and what popular opinion will support -- and through the period of these last years, as they have been losing market share, you mean that with all of the focus group mentality, and market testing, they have never thought that they are losing market share because they are not giving the public what we want. And their product is so bad it's shameful to produce it.
But politics has a part too. I just don't want to hear all of these warmed over right-wing talking points any more. I'm sick to death of it.
And to make the news readers these bubble headed models who don't know anything, or have any ideas in their head is like anaethma to someone who grew up watching the news because it was an intelligent contribution to ideas -- and also certainly because it was more liberal than it is today.
Who wants to hear what these right-wing creeps have to say? Not me, that's for sure.
I even get depressed reading the blogs when they are quoting so much stupid MSM in order to answer back. I appreciate the effort, but I would never choose to watch these people on FOX, and because I read the blogs, I know what they say everyday.
Maybe we should just try ignoring them.
I have had some more radical ideas lately: that the producers of TV news must know that they are going against the mainstream, and alienating people, their audience. How could they not know it? It occurs to me they have made a political choice to lose market share in order to uphold a false ideology. In doing so, the MSM has morphed itself into a kind of TASS or Isvestia official state communications arm for the gang in power-- including of course the major corporations who own it.
By holding the communications network falsely isolated from the public, they can be consciously keeping television from being used for the communication of real ideas.
The recent wave of documentary films about foreign and domestic political issues, of course
takes the place of what whould be happening on television in an open society.

Posted by sandra | April 17, 2008 10:38 PM

He has persuaded them that he is the more electable and the better equipped to put the Democratic case in November.

I can't speak for anybody else, but Obama has persuaded me that he'll be the best president in January. That is what matters. That is the only thing that ought to matter in April. That's the only thing that ought to matter in November. We would be so much better off if we could wipe clean the english language of word "electable." The very existence of the word suggests there is some standard other than ability to do the job that voters do and ought to care about. The existence of the concept legitimizes the shallow, trivia-based politics on display last night.

Posted by Led | April 17, 2008 10:44 PM

People who analyze this as "the media not giving people what they want" or "the media IS giving people what they want" completely miss the function of the media.

The media's function is to keep the people in line with "consensus reality" and the Establishment. That is their SOLE function (outside of making bananas^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hmoney and achieving status doing it, of course, which is what every chimpanzee requires from his function in life.)

There are also issues of technology - today, as others have pointed out, the MSM have "rivals" in the information dissemination and falsification game: blogs, the Net, etc. Which is why they're working to take back control of the Net (not that successfully, so far, fortunately). But most people still get the bulk of their information from talking heads on TV and from newspapers and magazines - and after all, most Web "news" comes directly from the same organizations that produce the TV shows and newspapers and magazines. Witness this blog. It's only the independent investigators and experts who put up Web sites and blogs, and contribute to things like Wikipedia that keep the Net from being totally useless (while at the same time making it hard to sift the wheat from the chaff - "chaff" used in the radar sense here.)

And of course, you have niches of media that act as either opposition to, or "loyal opposition" to the Establishment media. Matt falls into the latter category, since he's mostly clueless about what's really going on, even as he thinks he's in the former category.

Meanwhile, people who REALLY burrow into what's REALLY going on get dismissed as "conspiracy theorists", "whackjobs", or just not "Serious People". The biggest ally to the near-universal blindness of the electorate is cognitive dissonance - they can't afford to know what's really going on; it would destroy their identities, their self-worth, their worldviews.

Anybody expecting "the truth" to be deliberately provided by the MSM is an idiot. To the degree there is any "truth", it will "fall out" between the cracks of the MSM and the "conspiracy theorists".

People also forget that it doesn't matter what some college grad kid thinks about things when he goes to work for some major organization in media or anywhere else. He will brought into line sooner or later by the real powers that be, or he will be marginalized by them, or cast out into the "Not Serious" world.

And the media just reflects how everything else - government, religion, business, education, entertainment, science - works in this world.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 17, 2008 10:57 PM

The moderators were very good? When Steph took a question from a neo-nazi sympathizer (Hannity) about an activist turned respected professor? (File under 'christian forgiveness'.

Oh, did I say christian? Must be because at AmericaBlog, by way of MyWay, the Pope actually said...

Pope says Americans are "angry." I can't wait for Hillary to denounce him.
http://www.americablog.com/2008/04/pope-says-americans-are-angry-i-cant.html
Pope: America needs to be a land of hope for all
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080417/D903R8MG0.html

His homily was more somber. Benedict examined American society, saying he detected anger and alienation, increasing violence and a "growing forgetfulness of God."

"Americans have always been a people of hope," he said. "Your ancestors came to this country with the experience of finding new freedom and opportunity.

"To be sure, this promise was not experienced by all the inhabitants of this land; one thinks of the injustices endured by the native American peoples and by those brought here forcibly from Africa as slaves."

Speaking to his American bishops Wednesday, he said the U.S. must be welcoming to immigrants, helping them to flourish in their new homes.

Note to Charles Gibson and George Steph, you may now Swiftboat the Pope. Let's cut to commercial first, though.

Posted by kravitz | April 17, 2008 10:59 PM

Here's a letter to the press you can sign to tell them how bad they suck and that you want better: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/new-news.

Posted by slag | April 17, 2008 11:00 PM

I was barely paying attention to the debate last night, but this pretty much confirms everything Richard Steven Hack has said, doesn't it?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=K6TXy2Y8KMI&feature=user

Why isn't this getting more play?

Posted by 55 | April 17, 2008 11:06 PM

"The moderators were very good? When Steph took a question from a neo-nazi sympathizer (Hannity) about an activist turned respected professor?"

Hannity is a "neo-nazi sympathizer"? Evidence? And Ayers is just a former "activist"? Sorry: when you are part of an organization that sets bombs that kill people you are a terrorist. If it weren't for a legal technicality, Ayers would probably be in prison now, but instead he got off. At least a few of his douche bag acquaintances got hoisted by their own petard.

Posted by Fred | April 17, 2008 11:28 PM

never once has anyone suggested that declining audience might be in any way related to the quality of the product.

It never seems to occur to the WaPo that their relentless pro-war, neoconservative editorial line might be out of step with their DC audience or that readers of the NYT think they want a paper where they're told how they're not "real America" compared to the "heartland."

Posted by Tyro | April 17, 2008 11:53 PM

You are right. It is the absence of quality in newspapers, magazines and television that makes these media irrelevent. They are poorly researched, badly wirtten, insipid and badly edited. They are run by the journalistic equivalent of W - they somehow think that they have earned the mantle of Murrow, Sevareid, Pulitzer and Cronkite by just being there. Can you imagine what these weasels would do in the face of a Joe McCarthy.

Posted by Jake | April 17, 2008 11:55 PM

You are right. It is the absence of quality in newspapers, magazines and television that makes these media irrelevent. They are poorly researched, badly wirtten, insipid and badly edited. They are run by the journalistic equivalent of W - they somehow think that they have earned the mantle of Murrow, Sevareid, Pulitzer and Cronkite by just being there. Can you imagine what these weasels would do in the face of a Joe McCarthy.

Posted by Jake | April 17, 2008 11:56 PM

55, thanks for that link! That was an excellent analysis by Olbermann and Maddow.

I especially liked the funny part where Maddow said she ran into Pat Buchanan who took a hard right while she was taking a hard left.

Both of them are right, and so is Olbermann, when he describes this Clinton proposal to guarantee everybody in the Middle East that the US will defend them against...everybody else in the Middle East...as a radical departure, dropped in as a "by the way" by Clinton.

As Olbermann points out, this "pole-axes" US foreign policy, and results in another "Imperial Presidency" committing US troops everywhere any time some Middle East country wants to throw the US in the mix.

And NOBODY NOTICED because of the two idiots conducting the debate!

It's nuts!

Olbermann also noticed that neither of the candidates called Stephanopoulos on his phrasing of the question making the assumption that Iran has a current nuclear weapons program. Of course, that is because BOTH candidates actually believe that!

The candidates positions are identical on this issue, except that Clinton is more hawkish in her phraseology.

Trust me, both of them (not to mention McCain) are going to get the US embroiled in a war with Iran over NOTHING - if Bush and Cheney don't do it first, as I expect they will.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 18, 2008 12:09 AM

By the way, Rachel Maddow also correctly points out in that video that the proposal made by Clinton was originated by...wait for it...Charles Krauthammer!

So Clinton is now taking foreign policy advice from the neocons most vicious fucktard?

HELLOOOOO!!!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 18, 2008 12:13 AM

(with apologies to Kenneth Fair up above . . . and Aaron Sorkin)

Stephanopolous: Does Reverend Wright love America as much as you do?

Obama: . . . [laughs bitterly]

Stephanopolous: Is this funny to you, Senator?

Obama: No, it isn't. . . . It's tragic.

Stephanopolous: [impatiently] Do you have an answer to the question, Senator?

Obama: Absolutely. My answer is that I don't have the first damn clue. Reverend Wright voluntarily gave up his student deferment and joined the Marine Corps during the war in Vietnam. Maybe he did it for the perks. I'm an educated man, but I'm afraid I can't speak intelligently about the relative patriotism of Jeremiah Wright. I knew him as a man of God.

[clears throat]

Now, are these the questions I was really called here to answer? Preachers and flag pins? Please tell me that you have something more, Mr. Stephanopolous. Among so many other critical issues facing the American people, the lives of serving US Marines are at stake in this election. Please tell me their moderator hasn't pinned their hopes to a flag pin.

Hillary Clinton: [taps nose]

Posted by southpaw | April 18, 2008 12:30 AM

at the risk of repeating myself, blah, blah...

"The real issue is not Palestine. Unless they are neutralized, Israel lobbying groups, Israel advocates, Zionists, Neoconservatives, and Friedmanites will steal America and effectively abolish the Constitution in all but name to create a society of servitude for all Americans except for those belonging to the hyper-wealthy transnational Zionist political elite." (Joachim Martillo)

To a Bowling Green homemaker or Scranton bowler - Charles Krauthammer may appear to be a ghoulish, Israel-first zionazi buzzard with blood on his hands, a Joseph Goebbels sans ol' Joe's rakish charm...but in the New America- he is Plutarch the Wise, an esteemed Mandarin beyond approach.

Posted by Trevor | April 18, 2008 12:35 AM

To paraphrase, the mass media, disappointed with their audience, have voted to replace it with a new one.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 18, 2008 12:38 AM

Sorry: when you are part of an organization that sets bombs that kill people you are a terrorist.

Take it up with Peter King, long-standing IRA symp and ranking GOPper on the House Homeland Security Committee. From what I've gathered, his district isn't far from you.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 18, 2008 12:50 AM

If we apply the same Stephanopolous standards to Hillary, then she should have been questioned about every salacious scandal and rumor associated with the Clintons, no matter how absurd or in some cases, true.

She should have been asked, for instance, about Vince Foster and his death, whether Bill is still womanizing, about rumors she is a lesbian, etc.

Then, if the media wanted to bring up the past scandals, they could have mentioned pardongate, Whitewater, travelgate, etc.

They also could have asked about the Clinton corporate machine since 2000, whereby the Clintons have amassed such a vast fortune and how much of this is tied to interests, including foreign interests, and that the Clintons may have made deals with them for future political favors. That would actually have been a good question.

Imagine if Steph had taken every Hannity talking point and used those in questions against Hillary. Because, after all, apparently for Steph the best source for your questions is Sean Hannity.

Bottom line: ABC News lost the debate, and it's sad to see anyone from ABC try to defend their miserable questioning.

Posted by cm | April 18, 2008 1:17 AM

Exactly the point I was trying to make on the other thread, cm! I'm shocked at those who are saying "Hillary's been through it, and you're just whining that it's Obama's turn!" She's been through NOTHING! The press and Obama could have made her life hell by dropping one of those rhetorical bombs a week, but they haven't! And it disgusts me to see people defending Hillary for bringing up Ayers and Wright over and over again when Obama hasn't even trotted out surrogates in stained blue dresses!!

Posted by Powerade | April 18, 2008 1:22 AM

Exactly the point I was trying to make on the other thread, cm! I'm shocked at those who are saying "Hillary's been through it, and you're just whining that it's Obama's turn!" She's been through NOTHING! The press and Obama could have made her life hell by dropping one of those rhetorical bombs a week, but they haven't! And it disgusts me to see people defending Hillary for bringing up Ayers and Wright over and over again when Obama hasn't even trotted out surrogates in stained blue dresses!!

Posted by Powerade | April 18, 2008 1:22 AM

Well put, Matt. Incidentally, you just gave a perfect description of Marc Ambinder's mealy-mouthed, self-satisfiedly pious yet coyly hypocritical lecturama.

[be skeptical of] public opinion pressure when it is anchored in the worldview of one campaign

What "one campaign" might that be? The campaign for integrity, relevance, and substance in presidential debate moderation, perhaps? The campaign to treat voters, even working class ones, as if they were over the age of five?

My instinct, as a card-carrying member of the news media and a former ABC News person, is to defend ABC News, but I won't do that: ABC can defend itself.

Holy mother of God, the sacrifices the man makes for us all. I was worried ABC might need his last full measure of devotion, since they haven't a shred of credibility left in them, but now I see I was wrong, ABC and the Disney Corporation are strong enough to stand on their own two feet without Marc Ambinder holding hands with them, and the warm light of innocent victimhood will shield them from these baseless attacks by the voting public.

the American Flag pin question seemed out of place (although there are many Democrats and independents who really do worry about that...

So thoughtfully parsed. Obviously if you have Marc's judiciously balanced perch above the fray, you can criticize this yet still see how elitist and out of touch it is to want to distract people from lapel pins by appealing to fringe issues from the wine-track echo chamber, like the millions of working men and women who are without health insurance or are facing foreclosures on fraudulent mortgages, the couples afraid to get pregnant without coverage or having to explain to their kids why they're going to be homeless.

I personally have no problem with a "one-sided" debate

What probity! Presumably the scare quotes are there to smirk at the suggestion that there is another side to these issues--which must be why it's perfectly ok for the mainstream media to hand over the whole framing of the election to the likes of Sean Hannity, as they'll be doing right through November, fair and balanced all the way, regardless of the concerns of at least 50% of the voting public.

It's not so important who wins, or whether all coastal cities have to be abandoned to rising sea-levels, what's important is the corrective Marc Ambinder can offer to the moral and political hygiene of the viewing public.

Excuse me, I have to go take a shower now.

Posted by q | April 18, 2008 1:50 AM

Powerade

You might have a condition called short term memory loss. Obama and his surrogates practice dirty politics by issuing campaign memos to the press about Hillary.

Let's see, Hillary can't win because she doesn't have enough delegates. How about counting the 2,000,000 Democratic voters from FL and MI? Oh, I forgot, Obama would lose his small lead. These voters did not make the rules and are being punished by the Dysfunctional Democratic Party.

Hillary has been through nothing! What a joke! The campaign narrative was rewritten and kidnapped by the media after the Iowa caucus. Obama is the anointed one. The journalists of ABC News did the country a favor.

Marc and Matt have distinguished themselves in the last couple of days. On the other side, James Fallows is a typical Obama hack.

Posted by EWard | April 18, 2008 2:30 AM

EWard is obviously out to lunch.

If Florida and Michigan's delegates are seated, Obama ends up with 1716 delegates and Clinton has 1698. with the existing superdelegate count figured in, according to http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/02/ultimate-delegate-tracker.html.

And if you're assuming that all the superdelegates will go for Clinton, fergeddaboudit. Her delegate lead sank like a stone according to this chart:
http://bp3.blogger.com/_qJGvnOCBQcA/SALK5KxPpfI/AAAAAAAAAMg/Jcz1X4Mh1ow/s400/image001.gif

Plus Gore and Carter are going to demand she drop out of the race after the PA primary, according to reports. Either that or they will end up endorsing Obama.

Clinton is toast.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 18, 2008 3:23 AM

Dare I check the MY archives and see if such indignation about debate-mods performance (completely legit, btw) was on display when HRC was verbally gang-raped by Matthews and Russert last October?

Posted by Andruw | April 18, 2008 9:09 AM

Andruw,

I have never watched the debates because I find them to be artificial. What kind of questions were they asking? I ask that because I frankly don't think that Ayers, flag pins, etc. have any importance.

Posted by Micheline | April 18, 2008 9:50 AM

"verbally gang-raped"

I'm sure you're making it sound more exciting than it really was.

Posted by Oldone | April 18, 2008 9:52 AM

"verbally gang-raped"
-----------
Hillary was attacked by a swarm of oral sex devotees? ON Russert's TV show?

And I missed it?

Damm.

Those Wall Street lobbyists are getting more aggressive.

Posted by Don Williams | April 18, 2008 10:05 AM

"when you are part of an organization that sets bombs that kill people you are a terrorist"

the weather underground never killed anybody but themselves.

three members were killed while making a bomb

Posted by judson | April 18, 2008 10:36 AM

This must be what MY means when he says we "continue to live in a deeply gendered world."

Posted by Mark Adams

Not necessarily, but FOX is. They're the ones who only put blondes on the air.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | April 18, 2008 10:59 AM

Sorry: when you are part of an organization that sets bombs that kill people you are a terrorist.

By this standard, the US military is a bunch of terrorists.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | April 18, 2008 11:06 AM

I agree with anon.
NY in the prosperous 90's -> Private school -> Harvard -> smug pontificating.

The accent - get it seen to. Unless you want to do voice overs for a muppets revival.

Posted by anonisright | April 18, 2008 11:41 AM

I agree with anon.
NY in the prosperous 90's -> Private school -> Harvard -> smug pontificating.

The accent - get it seen to. Unless you want to do voice overs for a muppets revival.

Posted by anonisright | April 18, 2008 11:42 AM

I agree with anon.
NY in the prosperous 90's -> Private school -> Harvard -> smug pontificating.

The accent - get it seen to. Unless you want to do voice overs for a muppets revival.

Posted by anonisright | April 18, 2008 11:42 AM

Boycott ABC for a while, to tell them how you feel.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | April 18, 2008 12:56 PM

Boycott MSNBC & CNN for their Obama bias.

Kudos to ABC for having the courage to stand up to Obama and his cyberbullies.

Posted by EWard | April 19, 2008 11:33 AM

Unhappy with the mishandling of the presidential debates by irresponsible elements in the media? Free Press can help.

http://www.freepress.net/about_us

Spread the word.

Posted by FREEPRESS.net | April 19, 2008 6:09 PM