A new Vanity Fair takedown disheartens an aged former editor who in his time has seen too many dreary "I didn't get the story because nobody would talk to me" magazine profiles.
"Even as Sarah Palin’s public voice grows louder," the magazine blurbs, "she has become increasingly secretive, walling herself off from old friends and associates, and attempting to enforce silence from those around her. Following the former Alaska governor’s road show, the author delves into the surreal new world Palin now inhabits--a place of fear, anger, and illusion, which has swallowed up the engaging, small-town hockey mom and her family--and the sadness she has left in her wake."
What follows the admission that "neither Palin nor her current staff would comment for this article" is a string of insights from former aides, "friends," hotel bellhops and her about-to-be biographer Joe McGinniss, who has rented a house next door, which may or may not have a view of the Palins' windows.
McGinniss was there at the dawn of peeping-Tom journalism with his "Selling of the President," which in 1968 supplanted as a best-seller Theodore White's meticulously reported series of "Making of the President" books during the Kennedy years.
The level of such reporting can be judged by his thesis then that Nixon's media handlers were manipulative geniuses when, in fact, they managed to spend millions turning his 15-point polling advantage after the conventions into a November victory by less than one percent.
McGinniss' book next year may very well make the Vanity Fair piece look like a valentine, but the meaning of both goes beyond the question of loving or hating their subject.
Sarah Palin, who has voluntarily made herself into a media creature by abandoning politics to make millions flaunting herself in public, is fair game as an object of reporting.
But what does it say about the thousands of words in Vanity Fair that Gail Collins' takeaway from the piece is that it "suggests that Palin does still cut costs by being an extremely bad tipper. The piece also resurrects the charge that she does not actually hunt, and claims that Todd had to scour the neighborhood to find some moose to put in that chili when a TV crew came to call"?
All this scrounging for Palinalia echoes the time of McGinnis' first book in the late 1960s when a would-be journalist named A. J. Weberman was featured in Esquire as a "garbologist," who reported on the rich and famous by rooting through their rubbish, reconstructing their inner lives from the evidence of egg shells, coffee grounds and discarded scrap paper.
As journalism, it also recalls the expression GIGO from the early days of judging the reliability of computer output--garbage in, garbage out.
Update: You can count on Sarah Palin to be abrasively annoying, even when she's in the right. Her reaction to the Vanity Fair piece is to blast "impotent, limp and gutless reporters" who use anonymous sources, thereby giving credence to all those reports therein about her hair-trigger temper. Her grievances could have been much better expressed without impugning the author's cojones or courage, but it doesn't seem to be in her emotional range to respond with more sorrow than anger.
Showing posts with label American journalism.. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American journalism.. Show all posts
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Monday, June 29, 2009
Non-Profit-News News
A report in today's Washington Post raises questions about what's happening to the American economy, government and journalism.
Headlined "How a Loophole Benefits GE in Bank Rescue," it details how the world's largest company wormed its way into the Obama bailout and profited from issuing almost a quarter of the $340 billion in debt backed by the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, qualifying by owning two small Utah banks but at the same time escaping regulation of its huge financial operations.
The story exposes one element in a complex process but, beyond that, in its provenance, reflects wider problems in helping the public understand what's going on under the surface of government handouts and conventional reporting in these days of shrinking investigative journalism.
The Post notes: "This article was reported jointly with Jeff Gerth of ProPublica, an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest. ProPublica is supported entirely by philanthropy and provides the articles it produces, free of charge, both through its own Web site and to leading news organizations."
It's not only disturbing to find such charity behind the work of Washington's hometown news source but to consider the complications of how much attention it will generate in such GE-owned media outlets as NBC, MSNBC and CNBC.
Half a century of working in journalism and as a media critic have made me leery of conspiracy theories, but it will be interesting to see how much, if any, play this particular news gets tonight from Brian Williams, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Jim Cramer and other corporate employees.
It's same to assume that the President of GE won't be on the list of contenders for Worst Person in the World.
Headlined "How a Loophole Benefits GE in Bank Rescue," it details how the world's largest company wormed its way into the Obama bailout and profited from issuing almost a quarter of the $340 billion in debt backed by the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, qualifying by owning two small Utah banks but at the same time escaping regulation of its huge financial operations.
The story exposes one element in a complex process but, beyond that, in its provenance, reflects wider problems in helping the public understand what's going on under the surface of government handouts and conventional reporting in these days of shrinking investigative journalism.
The Post notes: "This article was reported jointly with Jeff Gerth of ProPublica, an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest. ProPublica is supported entirely by philanthropy and provides the articles it produces, free of charge, both through its own Web site and to leading news organizations."
It's not only disturbing to find such charity behind the work of Washington's hometown news source but to consider the complications of how much attention it will generate in such GE-owned media outlets as NBC, MSNBC and CNBC.
Half a century of working in journalism and as a media critic have made me leery of conspiracy theories, but it will be interesting to see how much, if any, play this particular news gets tonight from Brian Williams, Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, Jim Cramer and other corporate employees.
It's same to assume that the President of GE won't be on the list of contenders for Worst Person in the World.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
Newsweek and Krugman: New Realities
In a magazine cover, we have a reflection of what's happening not only to the American economy but politics and journalism as well: a close-cropped half of a bearded face and the lines, "Obama Is Wrong: The loyal opposition of Paul Krugman."
Newsweek's story tells us about the economist-turned-pundit who "criticizes the Obamaites for trying to prop up a financial system that he regards as essentially a dead man walking," but also illustrates the desperation of newsweekly magazines to survive.
In financial straits, Newsweek has been cutting its circulation and redefining itself away from the traditional role of presenting the week's news with attitude. With so much of both available on the Internet and cable TV, Newsweek has chosen less news and more attitude.
"If we don’t have something original to say," editor Jon Meacham points out, "we won’t. The drill of chasing the week’s news to add a couple of hard-fought new details is not sustainable.”
The 21st century has not been kind to Henry Luce's invention of Time in the 1920s to make sense of "the million little chaoses of raw news." In a 24/7 tower of babble, Americans no longer need a Voice from Above to tell them what it all means.
As Newsweek moves away from Time and US News, it will be competing for eyeballs and ads with such as the Economist, the New Yorker and Atlantic in telling readers what they don't know they want to know until they see it in a magazine.
The Krugman story is a promising start, a profile of a quirky Nobel Prize winner who keeps offering those in power reality checks and ends thus:
"Krugman thinks that Obama needs some kind of 'wise man' to advise him and mentions Paul Volcker, the former Fed chairman who tamed inflation for Reagan and now heads an advisory panel for Obama. How about Krugman himself for that role? 'I'm not a backroom kind of guy,' he says, schlumped over in his Princeton office, which overflows with unopened mail. He describes himself as a 'born pessimist' and a 'natural rebel.' But he adds, 'What I have is a voice.' That he does."
In these parlous times, so does Newsweek, and we can use both.
Newsweek's story tells us about the economist-turned-pundit who "criticizes the Obamaites for trying to prop up a financial system that he regards as essentially a dead man walking," but also illustrates the desperation of newsweekly magazines to survive.
In financial straits, Newsweek has been cutting its circulation and redefining itself away from the traditional role of presenting the week's news with attitude. With so much of both available on the Internet and cable TV, Newsweek has chosen less news and more attitude.
"If we don’t have something original to say," editor Jon Meacham points out, "we won’t. The drill of chasing the week’s news to add a couple of hard-fought new details is not sustainable.”
The 21st century has not been kind to Henry Luce's invention of Time in the 1920s to make sense of "the million little chaoses of raw news." In a 24/7 tower of babble, Americans no longer need a Voice from Above to tell them what it all means.
As Newsweek moves away from Time and US News, it will be competing for eyeballs and ads with such as the Economist, the New Yorker and Atlantic in telling readers what they don't know they want to know until they see it in a magazine.
The Krugman story is a promising start, a profile of a quirky Nobel Prize winner who keeps offering those in power reality checks and ends thus:
"Krugman thinks that Obama needs some kind of 'wise man' to advise him and mentions Paul Volcker, the former Fed chairman who tamed inflation for Reagan and now heads an advisory panel for Obama. How about Krugman himself for that role? 'I'm not a backroom kind of guy,' he says, schlumped over in his Princeton office, which overflows with unopened mail. He describes himself as a 'born pessimist' and a 'natural rebel.' But he adds, 'What I have is a voice.' That he does."
In these parlous times, so does Newsweek, and we can use both.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Banks Are Lending--to Their Own
The credit crunch is squeezing American businesses and consumers, except for the directors, top executives and other insiders who have loans from their own banks totaling $41 billion.
We learn this from the Charlotte Observer, which reports: "At Charlotte-based Bank of America, those loans more than doubled last year, to $624.2 million--the biggest dollar jump in the country. The largest of them likely went to three directors or their companies. The surge came during the third quarter as credit markets froze, the government prepared to infuse banks with billions in tax dollars and the board approved the purchase of troubled Merrill Lynch.
"Bank of America ranked fourth on the list of biggest insider lenders. At the top was JPMorgan of New York, which held $1.48 billion in insider loans, mostly by directors or their companies."
This hyperactive insider lending raises all kinds of questions about the true condition of the institutions that are now about to receive another huge bailout by the Administration's plan to get toxic assets off their books.
But it also raises a question about journalism as well. Why does a story of this significance come from a Charlotte reporter, Stella M. Hopkins, part of the McClatchy chain, rather than from the journalistic centers of the financial and political universe in New York and Washington?
The McClatchy papers are in small to medium-sized but fast-growing communities, and they often break stories that the metropolitan behemoths overlook. Old-fashioned journalism seems to be alive and well on Main Street.
We learn this from the Charlotte Observer, which reports: "At Charlotte-based Bank of America, those loans more than doubled last year, to $624.2 million--the biggest dollar jump in the country. The largest of them likely went to three directors or their companies. The surge came during the third quarter as credit markets froze, the government prepared to infuse banks with billions in tax dollars and the board approved the purchase of troubled Merrill Lynch.
"Bank of America ranked fourth on the list of biggest insider lenders. At the top was JPMorgan of New York, which held $1.48 billion in insider loans, mostly by directors or their companies."
This hyperactive insider lending raises all kinds of questions about the true condition of the institutions that are now about to receive another huge bailout by the Administration's plan to get toxic assets off their books.
But it also raises a question about journalism as well. Why does a story of this significance come from a Charlotte reporter, Stella M. Hopkins, part of the McClatchy chain, rather than from the journalistic centers of the financial and political universe in New York and Washington?
The McClatchy papers are in small to medium-sized but fast-growing communities, and they often break stories that the metropolitan behemoths overlook. Old-fashioned journalism seems to be alive and well on Main Street.
Monday, August 18, 2008
High-Fives for Fake News
Journalism research today shows devotees of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert to be better-informed than watchers of cable news shows hosted by Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly and Larry King, thereby raising the question of whether it's more helpful to lampoon the news than slobber all over it.
Asked which party now controls Congress, who is the current US secretary of state and to name the new prime minister of Great Britain, Comedy Central viewers outscored those who watch most cable TV news programs as well as those who claim to read newsmagazines and daily newspapers.
On the weekend, the New York Times asked, "Is Jon Stewart the Most Trusted Man in America?" with critic Michiko Kakutani concluding the Daily Show "has earned a devoted following that regards the broadcast as both the smartest, funniest show on television and a provocative and substantive source of news.
"'The Daily Show' resonates not only because it is wickedly funny but also because its keen sense of the absurd is perfectly attuned to an era in which cognitive dissonance has become a national epidemic."
What Stewart and Colbert tonight will make of two men aspiring to the most powerful position in the world being quizzed like schoolboys by a best-selling, pop culture clergyman remains to be seen, but it's clear that only connoisseurs of the ridiculous can do the sight justice.
Asked which party now controls Congress, who is the current US secretary of state and to name the new prime minister of Great Britain, Comedy Central viewers outscored those who watch most cable TV news programs as well as those who claim to read newsmagazines and daily newspapers.
On the weekend, the New York Times asked, "Is Jon Stewart the Most Trusted Man in America?" with critic Michiko Kakutani concluding the Daily Show "has earned a devoted following that regards the broadcast as both the smartest, funniest show on television and a provocative and substantive source of news.
"'The Daily Show' resonates not only because it is wickedly funny but also because its keen sense of the absurd is perfectly attuned to an era in which cognitive dissonance has become a national epidemic."
What Stewart and Colbert tonight will make of two men aspiring to the most powerful position in the world being quizzed like schoolboys by a best-selling, pop culture clergyman remains to be seen, but it's clear that only connoisseurs of the ridiculous can do the sight justice.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Silence of the Hams
Like Sherlock Holmes' dog that didn't bark in the night, the MSM blackout on John Edwards' visit to his "mistress and love child" (particularly on the part of the cable news loudmouths) gets curiouser.
My assumption yesterday about "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)" turned out to be stunningly wrong.
The reaction, or lack of it, on the part of the CNN, MSNBC and Fox operatic anchors and their endless panels of expert logorrhea is much more interesting than the story itself.
On Slate under the heading, "Edwards: The Agony of the MSM," Mickey Kaus asks, "If the MSM can discuss the charges in meta form ("It's so easy to jump to conclusions---and I admit, this looks bad") in blogs, chat rooms, and in press commentaries, why not on the front page in political commentaries?"
The most likely answer is a combination of fears about looking salacious and being insensitive to Elizabeth Edwards' medical condition. Even for a longtime non-admirer of John Edwards, this is understandable but not persuasive in the light of media reactions to previous political scandals, from Bill Clinton to David Vitter and Larry Craig.
The rationalizations, extending from "not proven" (the Enquirer today offers more details) to Edwards' privacy rights (he has been out front promoting his poverty campaign and hinting about being Obama's VP), fail to explain it.
As comforting as it would be to believe that all the media are developing more scruples about exploiting the personal lives of public figures, that explanation won't wash.
My assumption yesterday about "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)" turned out to be stunningly wrong.
The reaction, or lack of it, on the part of the CNN, MSNBC and Fox operatic anchors and their endless panels of expert logorrhea is much more interesting than the story itself.
On Slate under the heading, "Edwards: The Agony of the MSM," Mickey Kaus asks, "If the MSM can discuss the charges in meta form ("It's so easy to jump to conclusions---and I admit, this looks bad") in blogs, chat rooms, and in press commentaries, why not on the front page in political commentaries?"
The most likely answer is a combination of fears about looking salacious and being insensitive to Elizabeth Edwards' medical condition. Even for a longtime non-admirer of John Edwards, this is understandable but not persuasive in the light of media reactions to previous political scandals, from Bill Clinton to David Vitter and Larry Craig.
The rationalizations, extending from "not proven" (the Enquirer today offers more details) to Edwards' privacy rights (he has been out front promoting his poverty campaign and hinting about being Obama's VP), fail to explain it.
As comforting as it would be to believe that all the media are developing more scruples about exploiting the personal lives of public figures, that explanation won't wash.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)