The epicenters of the national economic crisis are showing a curious journalistic inversion in covering the news. The New York Times, at the heart of the financial industry, seems focused on reporting popular rage as the Washington Post, home of posturing politicians, is making more of a sustained effort to keep the issues in perspective.
This conclusion, admittedly impressionistic but based on close reading of the papers over the past months, is reflected in today's issues.
The Times features "Scorn Trails A.I.G. Executives, Even in Their Driveways" and "Connecticut Senator Draws Voters’ Ire for His Bonus Role," which highlight the blame game, while the Post offers "In New Dilemma, Banks Cite Two Paths to Disaster," a balanced report on the tension inherent in government supervision, and business columnist Steven Pearlstein's "Let's Put Down the Pitchforks":
"At the end of the day, the thing to get outraged about is not the $440 million in bonuses at AIG or the $10 million that Citigroup is spending to redesign its shrunken executive suite...almost insignificant compared with the real outrage: the hundreds of billion dollars of taxpayer funds that have been put at risk to keep AIG and Citi from failing and taking the whole financial system down with them. Let's keep our attention on the elephant rather than the pimples on its behind."
My conclusion, not buttressed by statistics, may be unfair to the Times, but I have seen nothing comparable there to the long takeout last month and a previous three-part series in the Post about the origins and history of the AIG debacle.
As the US Congress spends precious time playing gotcha on a minuscule issue in the nation's crisis, it would be helpful if the newspaper of record devoted more of its attention to what really matters.
Showing posts with label MSM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MSM. Show all posts
Friday, March 20, 2009
Monday, January 26, 2009
Vacuous Valedictory
"All good things must come to an end" is the start of his New York Times essay today, which concludes with an editor's note: This is William Kristol’s last column.
The subject of the piece is not the writer's tenure:
"Since Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, conservatives of various sorts, and conservatisms of various stripes, have generally been in the ascendancy. And a good thing, too! Conservatives have been right more often than not--and more often than liberals--about most of the important issues of the day: about Communism and jihadism, crime and welfare, education and the family. Conservative policies have on the whole worked--insofar as any set of policies can be said to 'work' in the real world. Conservatives of the Reagan-Bush-Gingrich-Bush years have a fair amount to be proud of."
It's fitting for Kristol to go out on a high note of error. klutzy writing and self-delusion, but apparently the market for his kind of babbling is not entirely dead. He came to the Times after a stint with Time, and now there are reports that the Washington Post, apparently suffering from a lack of wrong-headedness not completely satisfied by Charles Krauthammer and Michael Gerson, will avail themselves of Kristol's wisdom occasionally.
Whatever. The Times' next move should be to go after an elegant conservative like Peggy Noonan to go with their other literate columnists.
The subject of the piece is not the writer's tenure:
"Since Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, conservatives of various sorts, and conservatisms of various stripes, have generally been in the ascendancy. And a good thing, too! Conservatives have been right more often than not--and more often than liberals--about most of the important issues of the day: about Communism and jihadism, crime and welfare, education and the family. Conservative policies have on the whole worked--insofar as any set of policies can be said to 'work' in the real world. Conservatives of the Reagan-Bush-Gingrich-Bush years have a fair amount to be proud of."
It's fitting for Kristol to go out on a high note of error. klutzy writing and self-delusion, but apparently the market for his kind of babbling is not entirely dead. He came to the Times after a stint with Time, and now there are reports that the Washington Post, apparently suffering from a lack of wrong-headedness not completely satisfied by Charles Krauthammer and Michael Gerson, will avail themselves of Kristol's wisdom occasionally.
Whatever. The Times' next move should be to go after an elegant conservative like Peggy Noonan to go with their other literate columnists.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Obama Online Presidency Miffs MSM
He could turn out to be a one-term president, according to New York Times White House reporters in a panel discussion this weekend moderated by their assistant managing editor who complained:
“When the current president was elected, one of the first things he did was sit down with the New York Times and a battery of reporters. This president has not sat down with our New York Times press corps in a very long time, as even Bush did.”
As uncharitable as it may be to connect the gloomy assessment of his administration with Obama's going AWOL from the newspaper of record, the fact remains that he is bypassing what Reagan's people used to call "media filters" with almost daily speeches, televised "media opportunities" and exclusive unedited TV network interviews.
Even worse, to MSM eyes, are the Obama team's constant communications with 13 million supporters by e-mail, a million recipients of text-messaging, 2 million members of the campaign's proprietary social network, and 5 million "friends" on more than 15 other social networking sites including Facebook.
The Times reporters who foresee doom for an Obama Administration that fails to stop the economic slide may be influenced, consciously or not, by the growing number of predictions that their paper in printed form, along with many others, may be facing extinction under the same circumstances--and in less than four years.
All kinds of Change are in the air.
“When the current president was elected, one of the first things he did was sit down with the New York Times and a battery of reporters. This president has not sat down with our New York Times press corps in a very long time, as even Bush did.”
As uncharitable as it may be to connect the gloomy assessment of his administration with Obama's going AWOL from the newspaper of record, the fact remains that he is bypassing what Reagan's people used to call "media filters" with almost daily speeches, televised "media opportunities" and exclusive unedited TV network interviews.
Even worse, to MSM eyes, are the Obama team's constant communications with 13 million supporters by e-mail, a million recipients of text-messaging, 2 million members of the campaign's proprietary social network, and 5 million "friends" on more than 15 other social networking sites including Facebook.
The Times reporters who foresee doom for an Obama Administration that fails to stop the economic slide may be influenced, consciously or not, by the growing number of predictions that their paper in printed form, along with many others, may be facing extinction under the same circumstances--and in less than four years.
All kinds of Change are in the air.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
An Ugly Portrait of McCain
John McCain is stumping the country, asking "Who is the real Sen. Obama?" But the shoe may be on the other foot.
In a profile that summons up the hidden painting in "The Picture of Dorian Gray," Rolling Stone offers a history of John Sidney McCain that places the familiar heroic figure with a lifetime of service to his country in a light that makes even a reader opposed to his candidacy cringe.
Some of the story has been told before, most notably in the New York Times, but the unrelenting depiction of McCain as a reckless, spoiled Navy brat who was a selfish opportunist at every stage of his life, even during captivity in Vietnam, is so devastating that only its meticulous journalism makes it impossible to dismiss as character assassination in the last weeks of a campaign.
There are few anonymous sources in this narrative of names, dates, details and direct quotes from apparently reputable witnesses to McCain's life and career.
His supporters will predictably howl in protest, but if even half of what this indictment relates is true, John McCain makes George W. Bush look like a Horatio Alger hero who pulled himself up by his bootstraps.
The fair-minded can read and judge for themselves.
In a profile that summons up the hidden painting in "The Picture of Dorian Gray," Rolling Stone offers a history of John Sidney McCain that places the familiar heroic figure with a lifetime of service to his country in a light that makes even a reader opposed to his candidacy cringe.
Some of the story has been told before, most notably in the New York Times, but the unrelenting depiction of McCain as a reckless, spoiled Navy brat who was a selfish opportunist at every stage of his life, even during captivity in Vietnam, is so devastating that only its meticulous journalism makes it impossible to dismiss as character assassination in the last weeks of a campaign.
There are few anonymous sources in this narrative of names, dates, details and direct quotes from apparently reputable witnesses to McCain's life and career.
His supporters will predictably howl in protest, but if even half of what this indictment relates is true, John McCain makes George W. Bush look like a Horatio Alger hero who pulled himself up by his bootstraps.
The fair-minded can read and judge for themselves.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
McCain's PR Playpen
His campaign flackery is being fronted by a 29-year-old attack puppy named Tucker Bounds, who can't seem to stop tripping over himself with mindless muck that makes John McCain look foolish and nasty almost every day.
Yesterday, the ebullient Bounds was taken to task by Fox News' Megyn Kelly for lying about Barack Obama's tax proposals and the bill he supported for sex education in the Illinois Legislature.
US News & World Report tagged him for trying to pass off Sarah Palin's command of the Alaska National Guard as foreign policy experience, and the campaign cancelled a McCain appearance on "Larry King Live" after mild-mannered Campbell Brown pressed the hapless Bounds in an interview on CNN.
Bounds and Jill Hazelbacker, 27, are former University of Oregon classmates who took over McCain's PR when the campaign was out of money a year ago and are still running the show now that he is the nominee.
Their Googled past is a virtual blank, except for an Oregonian feature that reveals Bounds' mother recalling "he declaimed in paragraphs in his playpen," even if no one understood what he was saying.
McCain, who is more than twice as old as his mouthpieces, should think seriously about getting spokespeople who are not still in the playpen. As he keeps telling us, experience counts.
Yesterday, the ebullient Bounds was taken to task by Fox News' Megyn Kelly for lying about Barack Obama's tax proposals and the bill he supported for sex education in the Illinois Legislature.
US News & World Report tagged him for trying to pass off Sarah Palin's command of the Alaska National Guard as foreign policy experience, and the campaign cancelled a McCain appearance on "Larry King Live" after mild-mannered Campbell Brown pressed the hapless Bounds in an interview on CNN.
Bounds and Jill Hazelbacker, 27, are former University of Oregon classmates who took over McCain's PR when the campaign was out of money a year ago and are still running the show now that he is the nominee.
Their Googled past is a virtual blank, except for an Oregonian feature that reveals Bounds' mother recalling "he declaimed in paragraphs in his playpen," even if no one understood what he was saying.
McCain, who is more than twice as old as his mouthpieces, should think seriously about getting spokespeople who are not still in the playpen. As he keeps telling us, experience counts.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Jawing Over John Edwards
Today will be a test for us all--journalists, bloggers, the whole world of political punditry--in confronting the National Enquirer coup in staking out and catching John Edwards in a visit to what it delicately calls "his mistress and secret love child."
It won't be a pretty picture. From this morning's MSM reticence to what surely will be a cable news orgy tonight (Fox News in hog heaven over a fallen Democratic idol on Obama's VP list), no one will pass the test with anything approaching integrity.
So bring it on--the outrage at a politician's hypocrisy, crocodile tears for Elizabeth Edwards, condemnation of the media for voyeurism, wailing over the breakdown between what's public and private--and when it's over, the caravan will move on to its higher pursuit of helping Americans pick their next president.
The public's right to know will have been served
It won't be a pretty picture. From this morning's MSM reticence to what surely will be a cable news orgy tonight (Fox News in hog heaven over a fallen Democratic idol on Obama's VP list), no one will pass the test with anything approaching integrity.
So bring it on--the outrage at a politician's hypocrisy, crocodile tears for Elizabeth Edwards, condemnation of the media for voyeurism, wailing over the breakdown between what's public and private--and when it's over, the caravan will move on to its higher pursuit of helping Americans pick their next president.
The public's right to know will have been served
Monday, July 07, 2008
Naming Names: Echoes of Valerie Plame
In a piece by its Public Editor, the New York Times acquits itself of endangering the interrogator of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, by naming him while describing how he successfully extracted information through psychological means rather than "rough stuff."
The Times defense (the public's right to know, the impaired credibility of a story without the name of a key character, the decision that he would not be in any greater danger than "scores of others who have been identified in the news media for their roles in the war against Al Qaeda") bookends all the outrage over the outing of Valerie Plame as a covert operative by a vengeful Bush Administration.
Granted the huge gap in motives, what the incidents have in common is the question of protecting people who do dangerous work for all of us. Would readers have been deprived of crucial information by withholding the name of the interrogator any more than they were by being unaware of Valerie Plame's identity?
Doesn't identifying him undermine the point of the story by making it unlikely that he could continue to do what the Times obviously judged to be important work for national security?
What gives the Times the right to override the subject's fears by making its own judgment about "the potential harm in naming an honorable public servant?" (Part of the lame defense is using his nickname rather his actual given name.)
"I understand," the Public Editor concludes, "how readers can think that if there is any risk at all, a person...should never be identified. But going in that direction, especially in this age of increasing government secrecy, would leave news organizations hobbled when trying to tell the public about some of the government’s most important and controversial actions."
Incidents like this may encourage readers to wonder how serious the MSM are in their dedication to "the public's right to know" rather than their own aggrandizement and self-importance.
The Times defense (the public's right to know, the impaired credibility of a story without the name of a key character, the decision that he would not be in any greater danger than "scores of others who have been identified in the news media for their roles in the war against Al Qaeda") bookends all the outrage over the outing of Valerie Plame as a covert operative by a vengeful Bush Administration.
Granted the huge gap in motives, what the incidents have in common is the question of protecting people who do dangerous work for all of us. Would readers have been deprived of crucial information by withholding the name of the interrogator any more than they were by being unaware of Valerie Plame's identity?
Doesn't identifying him undermine the point of the story by making it unlikely that he could continue to do what the Times obviously judged to be important work for national security?
What gives the Times the right to override the subject's fears by making its own judgment about "the potential harm in naming an honorable public servant?" (Part of the lame defense is using his nickname rather his actual given name.)
"I understand," the Public Editor concludes, "how readers can think that if there is any risk at all, a person...should never be identified. But going in that direction, especially in this age of increasing government secrecy, would leave news organizations hobbled when trying to tell the public about some of the government’s most important and controversial actions."
Incidents like this may encourage readers to wonder how serious the MSM are in their dedication to "the public's right to know" rather than their own aggrandizement and self-importance.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Barack Doesn't Send Flowers Any More
Last year, John McCain felt the fury of media scorn, and now it's Barack Obama's turn for the hurt feelings of journalists as passions cool after their first encounters.
The Times' David Brooks, who was deeply in love late in 2006, is sharing his pain today after suffering from what he previously described as "Obama Comedown Syndrome":
"All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades."
Earlier in the year, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurta complained, "The Illinois senator remains a remote figure to those covering him," a complaint echoed by Newsweek correspondent Richard Wolffe, "There is no charm offensive from the candidate toward the press corps."
For other MSM infatuees, the letdown started this month with a rueful letter to the campaign about Obama's sneaking out on reporters for a rendezvous with Hillary Clinton while they waited on a plane to Chicago the weekend before her concession:
"The decision to mislead reporters is a troubling one. We hope this does not presage a relationship with the Obama campaign that is not based on a mutual respect for the truth."
The rest of us may be forgiven for taking all this as the natural course of adolescent crushes, remembering how enthralled they all were with the "straight talk" of John McCain and the "guy you'd like to have a beer with" charm of George W. Bush when they were all younger and more naïve eight years ago.
If Obama isn't spending too much time making MSM pulses race these days, the rest of us can sympathize with their hurt feelings and, with a little tough love from older and possibly wiser heads, tell them to get over it.
The Times' David Brooks, who was deeply in love late in 2006, is sharing his pain today after suffering from what he previously described as "Obama Comedown Syndrome":
"All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades."
Earlier in the year, Washington Post media critic Howard Kurta complained, "The Illinois senator remains a remote figure to those covering him," a complaint echoed by Newsweek correspondent Richard Wolffe, "There is no charm offensive from the candidate toward the press corps."
For other MSM infatuees, the letdown started this month with a rueful letter to the campaign about Obama's sneaking out on reporters for a rendezvous with Hillary Clinton while they waited on a plane to Chicago the weekend before her concession:
"The decision to mislead reporters is a troubling one. We hope this does not presage a relationship with the Obama campaign that is not based on a mutual respect for the truth."
The rest of us may be forgiven for taking all this as the natural course of adolescent crushes, remembering how enthralled they all were with the "straight talk" of John McCain and the "guy you'd like to have a beer with" charm of George W. Bush when they were all younger and more naïve eight years ago.
If Obama isn't spending too much time making MSM pulses race these days, the rest of us can sympathize with their hurt feelings and, with a little tough love from older and possibly wiser heads, tell them to get over it.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Tim Russert
He brought the powerful and the would-be powerful to us and firmly but respectfully held them to account. Tim Russert's sudden death today of a heart attack is a wrenching reminder that the familiar faces on the small screen belong to mortal human beings we can lose in a moment.
Of them all, his bluff honesty and persistence did more than most to help cut through the self-serving syrup politicians try to pour over us like pancakes on Sunday mornings.
Amid the outpouring of grief, there will inevitably be grousing about the too-tolerant MSM, but Tim Russert made "Meet the Press" a place where you could get at least some of the truth from people who lie for a living.
Sundays won't be the same without him.
Of them all, his bluff honesty and persistence did more than most to help cut through the self-serving syrup politicians try to pour over us like pancakes on Sunday mornings.
Amid the outpouring of grief, there will inevitably be grousing about the too-tolerant MSM, but Tim Russert made "Meet the Press" a place where you could get at least some of the truth from people who lie for a living.
Sundays won't be the same without him.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Studying Jon Stewart
"The Daily Show performs a function that is close to journalistic in nature, getting people to think critically about the public square. In that sense, it is a variation of the tradition of Russell Baker, Art Hoppe, Art Buchwald, H.L. Mencken and other satirists who once graced the pages of American newspapers."
That's the conclusion of the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism after studying Jon Stewart and his merry crew for an entire year, buttressed by the fact that the Daily Show "not only assumes, but even requires, previous and significant knowledge of the news on the part of viewers if they want to get the joke."
The study picks up on the fact that the show is as much about media criticism as political satire by noting, "The press itself is another significant focus on The Daily Show. In all, 8% of the time was made up of segments about the press and news media. That is more than double the amount of coverage of media in the mainstream press overall during the same period."
In a time when MSM are featuring jokers like Robert Novak, William Kristol and Karl Rove, it's comforting to see some academic recognition of commentators who are being intentionally funny.
That's the conclusion of the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism after studying Jon Stewart and his merry crew for an entire year, buttressed by the fact that the Daily Show "not only assumes, but even requires, previous and significant knowledge of the news on the part of viewers if they want to get the joke."
The study picks up on the fact that the show is as much about media criticism as political satire by noting, "The press itself is another significant focus on The Daily Show. In all, 8% of the time was made up of segments about the press and news media. That is more than double the amount of coverage of media in the mainstream press overall during the same period."
In a time when MSM are featuring jokers like Robert Novak, William Kristol and Karl Rove, it's comforting to see some academic recognition of commentators who are being intentionally funny.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Death by Blogging
"In Web World of 24/7 Stress, Writers Blog Till They Drop" reads the headline in today's New York Times for a report on "digital sweatshops" that evoke images of a century ago that led to the rise of unions to protect exploited factory workers.
The documentation is scant, but the idea will nonetheless appeal to a population of writers with a congenital need to see and expose hidden evil forces in society:
"A growing work force of home-office laborers and entrepreneurs, armed with computers and smartphones and wired to the hilt, are toiling under great physical and emotional stress created by the around-the-clock Internet economy that demands a constant stream of news and comment.
"Of course, the bloggers can work elsewhere, and they profess a love of the nonstop action and perhaps the chance to create a global media outlet without a major up-front investment. At the same time, some are starting to wonder if something has gone very wrong. In the last few months, two among their ranks have died suddenly..."
The piece is a throwback to the Vance Packard school of journalism of half a century ago, when excitable writers strung together a few anecdotes and statistics to agitate readers with best-sellers such as "The Hidden Persuaders," "The Status Seekers" and "The Waste Makers."
The net effect, one publisher noted back then, was to alarm the public at the discovery that society is organized.
It would be heartless to minimize the stress that some full-time bloggers feel, but there is something odd about finding a dark side to what is a labor of love and a form of self-expression that was not available to previous generations.
Better pay and working hours for piecework bloggers, by all means, but MSM like the Times may want to concentrate on recognizing and honoring their efforts rather than drumming up sob stories about them.
The documentation is scant, but the idea will nonetheless appeal to a population of writers with a congenital need to see and expose hidden evil forces in society:
"A growing work force of home-office laborers and entrepreneurs, armed with computers and smartphones and wired to the hilt, are toiling under great physical and emotional stress created by the around-the-clock Internet economy that demands a constant stream of news and comment.
"Of course, the bloggers can work elsewhere, and they profess a love of the nonstop action and perhaps the chance to create a global media outlet without a major up-front investment. At the same time, some are starting to wonder if something has gone very wrong. In the last few months, two among their ranks have died suddenly..."
The piece is a throwback to the Vance Packard school of journalism of half a century ago, when excitable writers strung together a few anecdotes and statistics to agitate readers with best-sellers such as "The Hidden Persuaders," "The Status Seekers" and "The Waste Makers."
The net effect, one publisher noted back then, was to alarm the public at the discovery that society is organized.
It would be heartless to minimize the stress that some full-time bloggers feel, but there is something odd about finding a dark side to what is a labor of love and a form of self-expression that was not available to previous generations.
Better pay and working hours for piecework bloggers, by all means, but MSM like the Times may want to concentrate on recognizing and honoring their efforts rather than drumming up sob stories about them.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Military Strategy: Co-Opt Bloggers
If you can't beat them join them--or use them. That time-honored American strategy for dealing with threatening social change has been on the table for bloggers, with a study for U.S. Special Operations Command suggesting "clandestinely recruiting or hiring prominent bloggers."
According to Wired, a 2006 report for the Joint Special Operations University proposed "putting them on the payroll" to "verbally attack a specific person or promote a specific message."
The co-author, a Professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, reports "positive feedback" for the proposal, which warned of the danger of "blowback," as in the case of the military being caught paying Iraqi journalists for enthusiastic reporting on the US occupation.
Bribing bloggers is an iffy idea, as various attempts to put them on campaign payrolls have shown (pace John Edwards), but co-opting social change is built into American society with a momentum of its own.
In the 1960s, the Hippies launched a "revolution" against materialism and hypocrisy but, after relentless media exposure, ended up self-destructing. Underground newspapers started taking advertising, the editors became TV celebrities and, on the streets of San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury district, national magazine reporters in psychedelic dress were interviewing one another for photo spreads. A year later, the cover stories read "Love Is Dead."
Blogging is too big and diverse to suffer such a fate, but if the military is considering moving in, it may be time for online reporters and talking heads on cable TV to be on guard against what Supreme Court Justice Learned Hand called "a multitude of tongues" beginning to sound more like a single voice.
According to Wired, a 2006 report for the Joint Special Operations University proposed "putting them on the payroll" to "verbally attack a specific person or promote a specific message."
The co-author, a Professor at the Naval Postgraduate School, reports "positive feedback" for the proposal, which warned of the danger of "blowback," as in the case of the military being caught paying Iraqi journalists for enthusiastic reporting on the US occupation.
Bribing bloggers is an iffy idea, as various attempts to put them on campaign payrolls have shown (pace John Edwards), but co-opting social change is built into American society with a momentum of its own.
In the 1960s, the Hippies launched a "revolution" against materialism and hypocrisy but, after relentless media exposure, ended up self-destructing. Underground newspapers started taking advertising, the editors became TV celebrities and, on the streets of San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury district, national magazine reporters in psychedelic dress were interviewing one another for photo spreads. A year later, the cover stories read "Love Is Dead."
Blogging is too big and diverse to suffer such a fate, but if the military is considering moving in, it may be time for online reporters and talking heads on cable TV to be on guard against what Supreme Court Justice Learned Hand called "a multitude of tongues" beginning to sound more like a single voice.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Spitzer and Sex Education
In one of those telling front page-back page juxtapositions, the headline news about Eliot Spitzer overwhelms a government study showing that one out of every four American teenage girls is infected with a sexually transmitted disease.
After seven years of a federal government promoting abstinence only, both stories are reminders that the gap between what Americans say in public and do in private has morphed into a chasm of hypocrisy.
As righteous Republicans enjoy the spectacle of a Democratic governor joining the ranks of Larry Craig, David Vitter et al, little attention is being paid to the alarming news about teenagers who don't know or don't care enough to protect themselves from infections that can lead to serious disease.
The MSM media and bloggers are all atwitter with how much Spitzer spent for how long for whose favors, but what is happening to a generation of our children is treated as dry, statistical stuff.
As officials of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention note that the findings underscore the need for more screening, vaccination and other prevention measures, 19 million new sexually transmitted infections occur each year. They emphasize that "we must continue developing ways to reach those most at risk.”
Maybe reading about the woes of a careless governor will be a start.
After seven years of a federal government promoting abstinence only, both stories are reminders that the gap between what Americans say in public and do in private has morphed into a chasm of hypocrisy.
As righteous Republicans enjoy the spectacle of a Democratic governor joining the ranks of Larry Craig, David Vitter et al, little attention is being paid to the alarming news about teenagers who don't know or don't care enough to protect themselves from infections that can lead to serious disease.
The MSM media and bloggers are all atwitter with how much Spitzer spent for how long for whose favors, but what is happening to a generation of our children is treated as dry, statistical stuff.
As officials of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention note that the findings underscore the need for more screening, vaccination and other prevention measures, 19 million new sexually transmitted infections occur each year. They emphasize that "we must continue developing ways to reach those most at risk.”
Maybe reading about the woes of a careless governor will be a start.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Barbarians at the Gray Lady's Gates
The year has not started well for the New York Times. While taking fire for the John McCain story, its family ownership is under siege from hedge funds that have now accumulated over 15 percent of the company's Class A shares.
Symbolically, the attackers are led by Scott Galloway, most often seen in a charity-ball photograph dressed as a blue-faced, sword-wielding Scottish rebel from the movie "Braveheart." But Galloway and his group are digital warriors who insist they don't want to overthrow the old order, just bring it into the 21st century.
In asking for four seats on Times Company board, they wrote that "we are not pursuing a change in the dual class shareholder structure. The New York Times is a great institution controlled by the Sulzberger family and we have no illusion about, or desire to change, that fact...
"We believe a renewed focus on the core assets and the redeployment of capital to expedite the acquisition of digital assets affords the greatest shareholder appreciation and creates the appropriate platform to compete in today’s media landscape."
For their $400 million investment so far, Galloway's invaders have received little encouragement. Their four nominees for the board have been rejected in favor of new Sulzberger choices including, significantly, a close associate of Warren Buffet's.
Nothing like a Rupert Murdoch takeover of the Wall Street Journal is on the horizon, but with 97 percent of its revenue coming from paper-based properties and stock prices falling, the Company is vulnerable to such criticism, as reported by the Washington Post, that "with a market capitalization of $2.8 billion, the single most valuable asset the Times Co. owns, some analysts say, is its new midtown Manhattan headquarters, which may be worth as much as $1 billion. Some have caustically remarked that the Times Co. is now a REIT--a real estate investment trust-- with a newspaper attached."
Amid denunciations of its McCain takeout from the Right and much of the Left, all this is a reminder that the New York Times is one of the few remaining media institutions still family-controlled and being nominally run as a public trust in a time when corporate ownership and "shareholder appreciation" are the rules of the game.
For those who have spent a lifetime in journalism, all this pressure on "the newspaper of record" is a sobering reminder that the old rules in most places are long gone.
Symbolically, the attackers are led by Scott Galloway, most often seen in a charity-ball photograph dressed as a blue-faced, sword-wielding Scottish rebel from the movie "Braveheart." But Galloway and his group are digital warriors who insist they don't want to overthrow the old order, just bring it into the 21st century.
In asking for four seats on Times Company board, they wrote that "we are not pursuing a change in the dual class shareholder structure. The New York Times is a great institution controlled by the Sulzberger family and we have no illusion about, or desire to change, that fact...
"We believe a renewed focus on the core assets and the redeployment of capital to expedite the acquisition of digital assets affords the greatest shareholder appreciation and creates the appropriate platform to compete in today’s media landscape."
For their $400 million investment so far, Galloway's invaders have received little encouragement. Their four nominees for the board have been rejected in favor of new Sulzberger choices including, significantly, a close associate of Warren Buffet's.
Nothing like a Rupert Murdoch takeover of the Wall Street Journal is on the horizon, but with 97 percent of its revenue coming from paper-based properties and stock prices falling, the Company is vulnerable to such criticism, as reported by the Washington Post, that "with a market capitalization of $2.8 billion, the single most valuable asset the Times Co. owns, some analysts say, is its new midtown Manhattan headquarters, which may be worth as much as $1 billion. Some have caustically remarked that the Times Co. is now a REIT--a real estate investment trust-- with a newspaper attached."
Amid denunciations of its McCain takeout from the Right and much of the Left, all this is a reminder that the New York Times is one of the few remaining media institutions still family-controlled and being nominally run as a public trust in a time when corporate ownership and "shareholder appreciation" are the rules of the game.
For those who have spent a lifetime in journalism, all this pressure on "the newspaper of record" is a sobering reminder that the old rules in most places are long gone.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
All the News That's Fit to Hint
You can hear the crackle of eggshells as the Public Editor of the New York Times walks through the wreckage of the paper's story about John McCain last Thursday.
In today's column, Clark Hoyt quotes the morning-after justifying by Executive Editor Bill Keller of a report on a "fighter against corruption" who has been “careless about appearances, careless about his reputation, and that’s a pretty important thing to know about somebody who wants to be president of the United States.”
Perhaps so, but Keller's characterization can be applied just as well to a newspaper that has been and still wants to be the journalistic conscience of the United States.
In defending his reporters, Keller downgraded McCain's "ties" to a younger woman lobbyist to an "association," but they offered proof of little more than an acquaintance that led staff members to worry that it might look like more. About that, the newspaper of record's own conscience concludes that "if you cannot provide readers with some independent evidence, I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed."
Amid all the leering, what has been lost is the point about McCain's iffy relationships with lobbyists over the years.
"The pity of it," Hoyt writes today "is that, without the sex, The Times was on to a good story. McCain, who was reprimanded by the Senate Ethics Committee in 1991 for exercising 'poor judgment' by intervening with federal regulators on behalf of a corrupt savings and loan executive, recast himself as a crusader against special interests and the corrupting influence of money in politics. Yet he has continued to maintain complex relationships with lobbyists like Iseman, at whose request he wrote to the Federal Communications Commission to urge a speed-up on a decision affecting one of her clients."
McCain's defense that he was only trying to expedite rather than influence that decision won't wash in a wink-and-a-nod town where any kind of intervention with a regulatory commission by a powerful Senator sends a clear message.
The Times' main error may have been not to publish its story about that, minus the gossip, as opinion rather than news in "a series of articles about the life and careers of contenders for the 2008 Republican and Democratic presidential nominations."
In today's column, Clark Hoyt quotes the morning-after justifying by Executive Editor Bill Keller of a report on a "fighter against corruption" who has been “careless about appearances, careless about his reputation, and that’s a pretty important thing to know about somebody who wants to be president of the United States.”
Perhaps so, but Keller's characterization can be applied just as well to a newspaper that has been and still wants to be the journalistic conscience of the United States.
In defending his reporters, Keller downgraded McCain's "ties" to a younger woman lobbyist to an "association," but they offered proof of little more than an acquaintance that led staff members to worry that it might look like more. About that, the newspaper of record's own conscience concludes that "if you cannot provide readers with some independent evidence, I think it is wrong to report the suppositions or concerns of anonymous aides about whether the boss is getting into the wrong bed."
Amid all the leering, what has been lost is the point about McCain's iffy relationships with lobbyists over the years.
"The pity of it," Hoyt writes today "is that, without the sex, The Times was on to a good story. McCain, who was reprimanded by the Senate Ethics Committee in 1991 for exercising 'poor judgment' by intervening with federal regulators on behalf of a corrupt savings and loan executive, recast himself as a crusader against special interests and the corrupting influence of money in politics. Yet he has continued to maintain complex relationships with lobbyists like Iseman, at whose request he wrote to the Federal Communications Commission to urge a speed-up on a decision affecting one of her clients."
McCain's defense that he was only trying to expedite rather than influence that decision won't wash in a wink-and-a-nod town where any kind of intervention with a regulatory commission by a powerful Senator sends a clear message.
The Times' main error may have been not to publish its story about that, minus the gossip, as opinion rather than news in "a series of articles about the life and careers of contenders for the 2008 Republican and Democratic presidential nominations."
Thursday, February 21, 2008
The NY Times Defines Deviancy Down
The Gray Lady won't win its 96th Pulitzer Prize with today's "expose" of John McCain's history of ethical struggles and leering innuendo about his relationship with a young woman lobbyist.
In fact, the Times' takeout is bigger news than its contents. The long leadup to publication has been a source of journalistic gossip for months, and the timing is attributed to worries about being beaten on the story by another media behemoth, the New Republic.
The days of the Pentagon papers, The New York Times vs Sullivan case that changed libel law and the universal respect for columnists like James Reston and Tom Wicker are long gone. Today we have William Kristol and this--a long rehash of McCain's political lapses, coupled with a low-fact personal smear.
In defining deviancy downward, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan might say, the Times has done more than open the door for its rabid right-wing haters. The newspaper of record has put pressure on itself to do a similar job on Barack Obama and his Antoin Rezko connections or face an election-year barrage of continuing criticism.
A long mea culpa from its Public Editor next weekend won't be enough to undo the damage.
In fact, the Times' takeout is bigger news than its contents. The long leadup to publication has been a source of journalistic gossip for months, and the timing is attributed to worries about being beaten on the story by another media behemoth, the New Republic.
The days of the Pentagon papers, The New York Times vs Sullivan case that changed libel law and the universal respect for columnists like James Reston and Tom Wicker are long gone. Today we have William Kristol and this--a long rehash of McCain's political lapses, coupled with a low-fact personal smear.
In defining deviancy downward, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan might say, the Times has done more than open the door for its rabid right-wing haters. The newspaper of record has put pressure on itself to do a similar job on Barack Obama and his Antoin Rezko connections or face an election-year barrage of continuing criticism.
A long mea culpa from its Public Editor next weekend won't be enough to undo the damage.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Obama's Dose of Media Payback
David Brooks' New York Times column with its cutesy concept of "Obama Comedown Syndrome" is a sure sign that the familiar process has begun: media payback, wherein the over-hypers of MSM start a new cycle of anti-gush to meet their quotas of knowingness.
In filling his space today, Brooks describes Obama enthusiasts as victims of "intense surges of hope-amine, the brain chemical that fuels euphoric sensations of historic change and personal salvation" and goes on to criticize the candidate as "the most predictable liberal vote in the Senate" with a tendency to vacillate on issues.
Yet, in October 2006, Brooks was one of the first commentators in either party to enthuse over Obama. In a column titled "Run Barack Run," he encouraged him to do just that, noting that “a president who brings a deliberative style to the White House will multiply his knowledge, not divide it.”
But Brooks is only doing what comes naturally to columnists, trying to stay ahead of the public opinion curve to preserve his punditry credentials.
When he declared his candidacy last spring, John McCain complained of rough media treatment, failing to understand it as the predictable backlash to all the "Straight Talk" hype about his previous campaign.
In Obama's case, there may be some legitimate "buyer's remorse" out there as voters begin to see him as a possible president rather than a symbol of hope, but in the coming weeks, the media can be trusted to amplify those doubts ad nauseam.
Welcome to the big ring, Senator.
In filling his space today, Brooks describes Obama enthusiasts as victims of "intense surges of hope-amine, the brain chemical that fuels euphoric sensations of historic change and personal salvation" and goes on to criticize the candidate as "the most predictable liberal vote in the Senate" with a tendency to vacillate on issues.
Yet, in October 2006, Brooks was one of the first commentators in either party to enthuse over Obama. In a column titled "Run Barack Run," he encouraged him to do just that, noting that “a president who brings a deliberative style to the White House will multiply his knowledge, not divide it.”
But Brooks is only doing what comes naturally to columnists, trying to stay ahead of the public opinion curve to preserve his punditry credentials.
When he declared his candidacy last spring, John McCain complained of rough media treatment, failing to understand it as the predictable backlash to all the "Straight Talk" hype about his previous campaign.
In Obama's case, there may be some legitimate "buyer's remorse" out there as voters begin to see him as a possible president rather than a symbol of hope, but in the coming weeks, the media can be trusted to amplify those doubts ad nauseam.
Welcome to the big ring, Senator.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Pimping Out the News
Last week's Chelsea Clinton furor marks a low point in cable network competition for eyeballs and ears during the 24/7 news cycle and raises broader questions about their prime-time "journalism," which has degenerated into a babble of idiot ids vying for attention.
David Shuster's "pimped out" remark exemplifies a trend reported almost a year ago by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, that "cable news channels...are moving more toward personalities, often opinionated ones, to win audiences.
"The most strident voices, such as Keith Olbermann and Glenn Beck, are among the biggest successes in winning viewers, as is CNN’s new crusader, Lou Dobbs. How much those individual shows affect a channel’s overall audience is harder to gauge. Their growth in 2006 was substantial, particularly among 25-to-54-year-olds, but those gains were not enough to stanch the overall declines.
"The shifts toward even edgier opinion are also probably a response to another change. Cable is beginning to lose its claim as the primary destination for what was once its main appeal: news on demand. That is something the Internet can now provide more efficiently."
Something even more basic is involved as well. Unlike newspapers, magazines and even blogs, TV news has always been a zero-sum game. If a viewer loses interest and switches channels, it's over, so the premium is on attention-getting and holding. Blowhards and gasbags are the means of choice.
So Olbermann, as much as he rants at Bill O'Reilly, is driven to his own extremes as are Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough and the trash-talking heads they assemble every night.
Only when there is immediate news to analyze, as on election nights, are the more rational voices heard--the Andrea Mitchells, Candy Crowleys, Jeffrey Toobins, Jeff Greenfields and even the Tom Brokaws of TV's greatest generation.
The rest of the time, it's hyperbole and hype, with the news, you might say, being pimped out.
David Shuster's "pimped out" remark exemplifies a trend reported almost a year ago by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, that "cable news channels...are moving more toward personalities, often opinionated ones, to win audiences.
"The most strident voices, such as Keith Olbermann and Glenn Beck, are among the biggest successes in winning viewers, as is CNN’s new crusader, Lou Dobbs. How much those individual shows affect a channel’s overall audience is harder to gauge. Their growth in 2006 was substantial, particularly among 25-to-54-year-olds, but those gains were not enough to stanch the overall declines.
"The shifts toward even edgier opinion are also probably a response to another change. Cable is beginning to lose its claim as the primary destination for what was once its main appeal: news on demand. That is something the Internet can now provide more efficiently."
Something even more basic is involved as well. Unlike newspapers, magazines and even blogs, TV news has always been a zero-sum game. If a viewer loses interest and switches channels, it's over, so the premium is on attention-getting and holding. Blowhards and gasbags are the means of choice.
So Olbermann, as much as he rants at Bill O'Reilly, is driven to his own extremes as are Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough and the trash-talking heads they assemble every night.
Only when there is immediate news to analyze, as on election nights, are the more rational voices heard--the Andrea Mitchells, Candy Crowleys, Jeffrey Toobins, Jeff Greenfields and even the Tom Brokaws of TV's greatest generation.
The rest of the time, it's hyperbole and hype, with the news, you might say, being pimped out.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Blog Amnesty Day
In all the exhilaration about blogging as a new frontier, it's easy to forget that, even in digital democracy, human nature does not change.
This deep thought is prompted by Blog Amnesty Day, a generous impulse to share the wealth of attention by bigger bloggers with their impoverished brethren.
Ironically, or perhaps not, it started with an event at the other end of the selfish-selfless spectrum, the tendency of the haves to turn their backs on the have-nots. (Jon Swift, with customary stylishness, explains it all here.)
As the recipient of much generosity, Blog Amnesty Day prompts me to resolve to expand my blogroll at every opportunity and try to pass along to others some of the kindness of Jon, Joe Gandelman at Moderate Voice, Mike Finnigan at Crooks and Liars, Pamela Leavy at Democratic Daily and new friends at Simply Left Behind, Sustainable Middle Class, Kiko's House, Liberal Values, Lance Mannion and others listed at the left.
Decades of working in MSM yielded less genuine good will than I have found this past year-plus in the blogosphere.
This deep thought is prompted by Blog Amnesty Day, a generous impulse to share the wealth of attention by bigger bloggers with their impoverished brethren.
Ironically, or perhaps not, it started with an event at the other end of the selfish-selfless spectrum, the tendency of the haves to turn their backs on the have-nots. (Jon Swift, with customary stylishness, explains it all here.)
As the recipient of much generosity, Blog Amnesty Day prompts me to resolve to expand my blogroll at every opportunity and try to pass along to others some of the kindness of Jon, Joe Gandelman at Moderate Voice, Mike Finnigan at Crooks and Liars, Pamela Leavy at Democratic Daily and new friends at Simply Left Behind, Sustainable Middle Class, Kiko's House, Liberal Values, Lance Mannion and others listed at the left.
Decades of working in MSM yielded less genuine good will than I have found this past year-plus in the blogosphere.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Kristol's Wet Kiss
Mike Huckabee will no doubt recover, but being drooled on by William Kristol in the New York Times must be an unnerving experience. I know it is for me.
After half a century of Tom Wicker, James Reston, Tom Friedman et al, Kristol's maiden column is a cliché-ridden, condescending noblesse oblige nod from the "well-born" conservative aristocracy to the hick from Arkansas, "a likable regular guy" for "the work-hard-to-get-ahead strivers who represent the heart and soul of the G.O.P." You can take Michelle Malkin's word for that.
But with Democrats "licking their chops" at a possible Huckabee nomination while "a nation turns its gateful eyes" to Barack Obama for defeating Hillary Clinton, what, "inquiring minds want to know," will Kristol have to tell us next week?
Stay tuned, and bring a towel.
After half a century of Tom Wicker, James Reston, Tom Friedman et al, Kristol's maiden column is a cliché-ridden, condescending noblesse oblige nod from the "well-born" conservative aristocracy to the hick from Arkansas, "a likable regular guy" for "the work-hard-to-get-ahead strivers who represent the heart and soul of the G.O.P." You can take Michelle Malkin's word for that.
But with Democrats "licking their chops" at a possible Huckabee nomination while "a nation turns its gateful eyes" to Barack Obama for defeating Hillary Clinton, what, "inquiring minds want to know," will Kristol have to tell us next week?
Stay tuned, and bring a towel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)