
(Today author Eric Boehlert joins us for the second half of the discussion of his book, Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush. Part I can be found here .)
One of the questions frequently lobbed at politicians on blogger conference calls is what they feel their relationship is to the mainstream press. Some acknowledge that Democrats have a hard time getting their message included, but the'll also excuse this as part and parcel of not being the party in power. Others see the press as rather inert, a medium rather than a messenger. I've only heard one acknowledge that on balance the press is actively hostile to the Democratic party, to liberals in general, and that the myth of a "liberal media" is just that -- a myth.
To all of them I'd like to recommend picking up Eric Boehlert's book Lapdogs. The blogosphere can be like a fast-moving train, and it can take some time to join the conversation -- from a blogger's perspective, if you're writing 4 or 5 posts a day it's just difficult to keep explaining the same stuff over and over again, it's as boring to keep repeating endless exposition as it is to read it. To all those looking for a quick, concise, funny and brutal textbook on the history of the narratives we are discussing, there is no better tome. And as someone who writes about this stuff every day, I can say that reading it all catalogued like this, condensed into one tight story, is quite daunting.
Boehlert takes many of the salient threads that scatter across the blogosphere on a day-in, day-out basis and weaves them into a tight tapestry with the benefit of hindsight that allows him to organize them with a perspective that we don't have when we're sitting in the middle of unfolding events. And he does a remarkable job.
As Boehlert notes, there is great irony in the fact that journalists have been so easily lulled into compliance with right-wing narratives. We on the left may be critical but we're trying to urge the press into higher standards; the right essentially wants to destroy them. As he says:
Journalists are being actively undermined, yet reporters and editors won't even put up a fight. Rather than pushing back by pointing out the absurdity of the conservative press attacks (most MSM members politely ignored the Schiavo memo blunder, for instance), or at least ignoring the haters' endless stream of baseless accusations, MSM jouornalists, anxious to prove they are not liberal, toast the press haters' tenacity, gloss over their radical rhetoric, and pretend they're adding something to the public dialog.
I personally go apoplectic when the queen of eliminationist rhetoric herself, Ole 60 Grit O'Beirne, shows up regularly on Meet the Press or Hardball and and she's treated like her opinion on anything is either reasonable or relevant. It's a measurement of how far the discourse is slipped that she's not banished to fulminating about fluoridated water and black helicopters in some remote wingnut ghetto but rather given a rather large megaphone to spout her extremism. Boehlert is absolutely right -- this media acquiescence to the radical right is unseemly.
And for all the recent dust-up over liberal bloggers and their relationship to the Democratic Party, few have seen fit to point out the obvious -- we are rather blissfully NOT under their thumb, and hence much of the friction. Quite different from the right-wing bloggers, who exist as simply another tentacle of the Mighty Wurlizter:
For instance, during the 2006 confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, the RNC hand-picked right-wing bloggers, including Power Line, to cover the event from Washington, D.C., showering them with access and attention in the process, including an off-the-record interview with Karl Rove. In return the RNC was rewarded with mostly glowing, obedient coverage from bloggers in attendance. "The [Alito] sessions revived, and arguably legitimized, criticism that at least some right-leaning bloggers are tools of the GOP," noted Daniel Glover, writing for the nonpartisan National Journal.
When Bobo Brooks went on his silly anti-blogger rant this morning in The New York Times, he completely ignored the existence of right-wing bloggers, and rightfully so. In the grand scheme of the right-wing noise machine, these Wingnut Welfare Queens are largely irrelevant.
Boehlert goes on to note that the right wing attack on the media is rooted in ignorance, and therefore quite frequently incoherent:
Their work has everything to do with intimidation as well as advancing the conservative agenda, and too little to do with thoughtful media examination. The press haters literally do not understand how journalism works. Or at least they pretend they do not.
One has to wonder how journalists feel good about cozying up to those who neither appreciate what they do nor even desire their continued existence; I guess it's easier to play nice with the schoolyard bully than it is to stand on principle. But Boehlert's book clearly outlines the lengths the right-wing has gone to in order to co-opt and neutralize accurate, independent coverage of national politics and any major Democrat who does not recognize that this is what they're up against should pick up a copy of this book, pronto.
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
Welcome Eric!
So great you could join us today - make yourself comfortable.
The locals will be reading the discussion post and pitching you questions - sit back and enjoy the ride, and jump in whenever.
Not frist.
Welcome Eric — looking forward to the discussion today!
greetings y’all. thanks for having me.
Please, everyone, confine this discussion thread to the book and its topics. The thread below can remain a more open discussion thread.
Seriously though, now that Gitmo has banned all journalists except for the ones at Fox-Jazeera, when will the press finally buy a clue and start reporting the obvious?
Trying to urge the “mainstream” press to take higher standards is a losers game.
WE are the higher standard.
Eric — I’m curious to know how your interaction with people in the media — a lot of whom you probably had some form of social relationship with prior to writing this book — has changed since its publication. Huge changes? A lot of agreement with what you’ve said — although likely more private than public agreement, I’m sure? Any dialogue opening up that you have seen regarding the important issues and behaviors that you raise here? Or have you become “persona non grata” among former media acquaintences?
I was stunned, but then not surprised, when the White House named Tony Snow WH Press Secretary. I mean they really eliminated the middleman didn’t they?
Welcome, Eric. I enjoyed hearing you in a panel discussion at YearlyKos.
In your chapter The MSM Goes To War, you describe the press’s failings in its coverage of the Iraq invasion and occupation, the way it became essentially a PR operation for the Bush administration. In the post-Katrina period, when we have seen some improvement in the way the MSM does its job generally, in your opinion have they become any more credible in their coverage of events in Iraq?
Last week, Peter Daou and I disagreed about one thing: Why? He says it’s not as important as identifying the instances; I agree, but aren’t the journalistic questions who what when where WHY and how? I really want your opinion, if you would be so kind.
I’m 2/3 of the way through the book. I find it easy to read but have to keep putting it down to find my husband and say “Can you believe this?????”
none of media acquaintences have suggested the premise of the book is completely left field, or that the press has actually been tough on Bush. in fact, more have privately conceded the premise of the book is accurate…it’s just that their media employer has really been the exception to the rule.
I used to enjoy reading the NYT in the morning, coffee and crossword, until their aid in the lead up to war with Iraq and further propping up of this administrations numerous crimes eventually led me to cancel my subscription. For a while I got my fix at the WaPo before the FDL battles with WaPo… (what was their names?). I wrote the WaPo often and eventually warned that as a daily reader I would soon move on to other news sources due to the talking points of (what was their names?) and their slimy coverage of Republican corruption. This morning as I finished my normal blog rounds and a quick glance at the online NYT and WaPo (Froomkin) I realized that I have never returned readership to the commercial press and my warnings to them were not idle threats. Further I now can hardly stomach the format of the big rags and this extends to television news of which I used to enjoy the BBC and PBS - no more. Lack of my commercial rag reader-ship/viewer-ship is hardly important in itself but how many thousands plus have done the same; disgust in the rags led me to progressive blogs which still amaze me daily for their dedication, professionalism and creative approach. As Jane lives her mothers passing I hope she takes comfort knowing that her efforts here have been noble and historic, many thanks to Jane’s mom, and Jane.
post-katrina, i, like lots of folks, held out hope the press was going to come to its collective senses. but yet again (like charlie brown kicking the football) i’ve been disappointed. i mean just look at the nonsense re: the bush bounce last week. the press, it seems, is incapable of getting out of its bush rut.
Heh, I’d like to list all these “exceptions” because damned if I could name any.
ah, the question of why. it’s a big one, and i wish i had a better answer. but if i had to rank them, i’d put fear of the right-wing attacks on the press as no. 1. the conservative ‘liberal bias’ attack, now 35-years old, has been very effective and has produced wonderous results for the right.
that said, there’s also a personal thing going on between press and dems. the press didn’t like clinton, it hated gore, it thought kerry was out-classed and makes fun of reid, pelosi etc.
Eric,
Blog triumphalists hail the new online medium as a way to create or even supplant the establishment media’s ability to annoint conventional wisdom. Blog pessimists say that nothing matters until we transform the narratives of the establishment media through pressure, consistency and political action.
Where do you line up in this argument?
I was going to ask if it seems to you as if the trend you identify has started to shift, but that was before I saw the latest reporting on the Casey proposal. The one the journos are saying is a big help for the Republicans, even though it puts them in the position of being against timetables before they were in favor of them.
Hi Eric, I haven’t read Lapdogs yet, but perhaps you can address this: By what means does the corporate media management enforce (via editors) message discipline on reporters? Is it the whore model (”You’ll cover what I tell you to cover, dammit, and to hell with your scruples”)or the koolaid drinker model (hire reporters who are in ideological agreement)? Thanks.
Two things going on that the press could resist really bother me: the backgrounders where the “top administration officicial” puts out a story a day ahead and it gets exclusive coverage, and the failure of most media outlets to identify or limit quoting administration officials who say totaling self-serving things.
This has gone on for along time in media, but this GOP team has honed the manipulation of the press with these tools to an art. Shouldn’t major news organizations put a stop to this or do they have no self respect??
Eric at 16
If you covered this in the book, I apologize, haven’t been able to get it yet:
can you explain WHY the press “didn’t like Clinton, hated Gore, thought Kerry was out-classed and makes fun of Reid, Pelosi, etc.?”
Is it the complete conversion of coverage of elections to the horse-race theme from the substance of issues? And how did that happen, anyway?
Again, apologies if it’s all on the page - I will read the book as soon as I can.
It’s the “privately conceded” that’s the heart of the matter.
What would happen if they conceded publically, Eric?
Here’s another why, Eric, that I’ve never been able to figure out. Why did they not like Clinton? From out here in Citizenville, the view of Clinton was of a likable, really smart guy. What did he do to the press corps to make them hate him? BE smarter?
“. . .it’s just that their media employer has really been the exception to the rule.” That’s what women say when discussing how bad marriages can get or how selfish men can be. “But not my husband, he’s really the exception.” Anybody recognize this? Making excuses for bad or bullying behavior makes you a …what?
Greetings Eric. Thanks very much for your book.
Related to op99’s question at 19, as a graduate student in journalism I know that a few years ago, studies of the supposed “liberal bias” in news organizations tended to show that, although ownership of these organizations is often in the hands of Republicans, the party preferences of reporters and journalists tended to be Democratic. Has this changed?
i don’t think blogs, for now, can supplant the msm’s ability to annoint cw. but blogs can someimtes help correct it or re-direct the cw.
the bad news is in recent months i’ve become even more pessimisitic as we watch the msm again and again simply ignore obvious points raised online and just embrace RNC talking points. i.e. last week i wrote how odd it was the press was protraying dems as the losers in the ‘cut and run vs. timetable debate, considering the three previous national polls all showed a majority of americans supported the dems position; setting a timetable.
yet this week’s newsweek reports the gop ‘won’ the debate on iraq last week, while, of course, conventiently ignoring the fact americans side w/ dems.
it’s like this bad movie that won’t stop replaying itself
Semi-O/T: Murtha is really taking a beating in the reader comments section of this article
http://regulus2.azstarnet.com/.....id=135159.
If editors are tallying positive vs negative response.. they’ll certainly think readership is anti-Murtha.
The fallout?????
party preference of good reporters dont matter, they do their job. But even good reporters are influenced by access pressures and rewards.
More insiduous in a place such as DC is that there are friendships and cocktail circuits and there is an elite element to rewards for top-level beat reporters.
SOme dont care about this, but many do.
Most insiduous is the issue of access. If you cover the Senate, you need Frist. You would have no access if you referred to what he did to the cats in cambridge. it doesnt matter that it is in his book.
I have a feeling the only notable shift in CW will come with surprising electoral results or strength.
If the Dems surprise people in ‘06, there may be some changes in the narraitves. Maybe. But even then, only if DC Dems push their case and play offense (as if!. . . but one can hope, and organize).
Hi Eric:
I’m a former journalist turned litigation attorney but I can’t believe the unparalled assault on our freedoms and rights. And the overreach of powers taken on by this white house.
And all the while Congress does nothing. The “fourth estate” does nothing.
Stolen election machines mean our votes don’t count even if we moblize and fire up the troops. I believe Kerry actually won by 3 percent as the exit polls showed before they stole the election.
I am very cynical. What’s your take on the future of this country?
And, if you want to get even more depressed, read below from truthout: a “commission” to continue the assualt on the poor, the environment, etc., ,long after the Preznit is gone. nice.
White House, GOP Leaders Plan All-Out Assault on Federal Protections
BushGreenwatch.org
Friday 23 June 2006
Apparently rushing to lock in a long-sought goal before the fall elections, GOP congressional leaders may bring to a vote within weeks a proposal that could literally wipe out any federal program that protects public health or the environment - or for that matter civil rights, poverty programs, auto safety, education, affordable housing, Head Start, workplace safety or any other activity targeted by anti-regulatory forces.
With strong support from the Bush White House and the Republican Study Committee, the proposal would create a “sunset commission” - an unelected body with the power to recommend whether a program lives or dies, and then move its recommendations through Congress on a fast-track basis with limited debate and no amendments.
Three leading proposals have been introduced and are being winnowed into a final version. They would give the White House some - or total - authority to nominate members to the commission. House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has confirmed that his office is coordinating development of a final version for prompt floor action.
Sunset commissions have been proposed, and defeated, before. But public interest veterans say the current situation is unlike any in the past, because the House Republican Study Committee, which includes some of the most anti-regulatory members of Congress, has secured guaranteed floor consideration of a sunset bill.
If such a bill should become law, the sunset commission could be packed with industry lobbyists and representatives from industry-funded think tanks, and could conduct its business in secrecy. Two of the sunset proposals under consideration would mandate that programs die after they are reviewed, unless Congress takes action to save them.
Several environmental programs have been targeted during past sunset attempts. Experts predict those would be among the first a sunset commission would review. Among them: the Energy Star Program; federal support for mass transit; the State Energy Program, which supports numerous state and local energy renewable efficiency programs; the Clean School Bus Program; the Land and Water Conservation Fund; federal grants for Wastewater infrastructure; a national children’s health study that examines factors leading to such problems as premature birth, autism, obesity, asthma, and exposures to pesticides, mercury and other toxic chemicals.
A coalition of public interest groups is fighting to block enactment of a sunset commission. Information is available through the Sunset Commission Action Center at OMB Watch.
——-
I have the same question as Pachacutec #17, what is the best response. Corporate media has financial incentive to pander and turn news and analysis into show business. BushCo is very aggressive in exploiting that incentive. The reactionary wing is very well organized. I wish the DailyKos as dictator scandal was not as silly as it is, since the non-reactionary blogs do not have message discipline and are shuned by establishment Dems.
Several times in your book you seemed to complain that it wasn’t fair, or that media should be fairer. But why should they. They are corporations out to make money through marketing and buying off government. They need pressure from other side, but how to do that?
Eric,
Thanks so much for your revealing insights, great book and of course, visiting with us here.
My question is what can we do to seriously ratchet up the pressure ?
not sure why the press didn’t like clinton. the cw was he was too much like them and they resented his amazing political success. i don’t doubt the theory even tho it’s demented. since when are journlaists supposed to put themselves on the same footing as presidential candidates? incredibly arrogant, but i’m sure it explains part of the groupthink that took place.
cw?
Jane Hamsher is the reason I read blogs.
It’s the unquestioning spoonfed stenography that continues to dismay me, because it’s more subtle than the open attacks. Today’s NYT article about how our top military commanders are “planning” on significant withdrawals seems a case in point. In one of the first paragraphs, we are told that the top general’s briefing on the “plan” was highly secret. The rest of the article then specifies the details of the highly secret plan. So this was a deliberate leak, but the article doesn’t explain how that came to be — only that people weren’t allowed to go on the record.
Nor did the article explain the context well enough to allow us to connect the dots. For example, all week, we had Congressional debates about what our”plan” should be? Does the President have a “plan” or not? What is it?. What is “stay the course?” At the end of the “debate,” the Dems are allowed to argue that there is no plan except more of the same and they carry that theme into the elections. But wait.
The story says, “well, here’s a plan, with lots of details.” But it’s not really a plan, because they don’t really “plan” to follow it. It’s just an scenario excercise to answer the question, “what if conditions allowed you to withdraw troops. what would you do?” Answer: withdraw these troops, then those troops on this possible schedule. It’s just a scenario, not a genuine plan that actually tells us how to create the conditions in which the troops can actually be withdrawn, given whatever policy objective (unstated) they have.
Now that’s the lead story in the NYT, our paper of record. Deliberately leaked for spin, spoonfed and not what it appears, and not questioned either as to logic or purpose.
cw = conventional wisdom
cw=conventional wisdom (or cow watching, depending on where you live)
boehlert #26: you seem pretty pessimistic. So what pressure would press respond to, in your opinion? You think nothing will happen until organized effort from Democrats? Get a critical mass of blog supported progressives, regardless of their ideological leanings, who will speak directly to press? What do you see as good approaches to the problem?
yes, the media are out to make money. but i don’t think that means they can’t do it by practicing good journalism. they did it for years. but the rules have obviously changed over the last decade.
They didn’t like Carter, either, as I remember. Is it the whole insider/outsider thing? But then, how to explain Reagan?
Lack of my commercial rag reader-ship/viewer-ship is hardly important in itself but how many thousands plus have done the same;
Boehlert - do you get any sense that any of the big shot reporters or editors have any idea that their business model itself is at risk?
Also, just have to say that I thought Shill Wind was brilliant.
I thought they felt free to go after Clinton since his past (week smoking, draft dodging Rhodes Scholar) was the very cariacature of a liberal they can exploit for free.
Clinton was all about their class-hatred, Eric. Don’t you remember what”Dean” Broker and Sally “Kneepads” Quinn wrote about him “trashing the place”?
He was Brittany Spears to them– pure Trailer Trash. The fact that he was smarter, braver and more tenacious than they were only made it worse for them.
the good approaches–i think what’s happening online right now is a great approach. i mean just think back to the downing street memo. if it hadn’t been for the furor caused online, that story would have been completely ignored.
so, i don’t want to suggest the efforts are not paying off. some are. it’s just that the msm is showing no signs, even with bush at embarrassingly low approval ratings, of seriously adjusting its approach.
Eric @33 - man, that mind set you describe - jealousy - has been a big part of the conservative push of the last 35 years. ANYONE can become president (and that was all too sadly proven in 2000 - any DOLT can); therefore, I am just like the president. How dare he show he’s better than me. Led to the SC saying it’s OK to sue a sitting president for something he did before he was elected. Personally, I don’t hold the most powerful man in the free world to the same standards as my next-door neighbor.
Can you think of a way to prevent the next SwiftBoat episode, which will be directed very shortly against Murtha? How would you handle a response to that smear?
i also thought today’s nty article on troop levels was amazing disingenuous. as if generals really have the final word re: this incredibly loaded political issue. obviously generals didn’t have the final word in calculating the troop strength in 2003 (rumsfeld did), and i doubt they’ll get the final say in 2006 or 2007. but it seemed to me the times played dumb about that part.
Re Clinton: your book reinforced my opinion that much of corporate media divas today are performers not news people. They are a corrupt show business aristocracy that can’t dig or thnk, ashamed to bed. Clinton was not part of that, wouldn’t play their showbiz game, and could make them look like fools. So combination of arrogance, fear, class solidarity was responsible. In addition to being seduced by GOP playbook what is very carefully designed to appeal to their strengths and vanity, and which was at least implicity approved of by corporate suits. But I came to the book with strong prejudices. I always come back to question -what is best way to counter all that?
I meant “ashamed to beg.” I am sure that they are not ashamed to bed, with the right sort of people.
Nah, as you explained in the the DSM episode, Eric, the media response (especially Dana Milbank’s) to the mock hearing John Conyers held just re-iterated the naked scorn the MSM has for Democrats. They (falsely) claim they can’t air opposing opinions to the Bushies because there aren’t any Democrats to do it. But when Democrats are actively making a point, as they were witht he Downing Street Memo, they either ignored them or riduculed them, then at long last called the issue “old news”.
OK, call me a tinfoil hat brigader, I’m fine with that, but when is the media going to cover the growing 911 truth movement?
I don’t have the answers but I do know that the govt’s story on 911 is complete BS. The towers didn’t fall from jet fuel. Jet fuel burns at 1,200 degrees, on a good day, and steel requires 2,500 to 3,000 degrees to melt. Yet there was red hot dripping metal at ground zero for weeks.
http://www.physics911.net/
Remember: it took about 10 years for the JFK assination/Warren Commission to get revealed as total BS too.
Boehlert - are you familiar with Robert Parry’s reporting on how the right wing, led by Bill Simon, took over (in the sense of influence) media ownership? What, if anything, do you think of his work? At least the part of it that covers the news media?
Hi, Eric:
I’m the exec. editor of a progressive magazine, In These Times, and have been following critiques like those that you outline in your book very closely for the past few years. Seems to me that the case about the corruption and bias of mainstream media has been made quite soundly, but that media critics pay much less attention to the need for progressive media alternatives to serve as a counterweight to the MSM.
I agree that blogs–which can very effectively generate rapid response and marshall audience activism– are an important tool for shifting the common wisdom. But we also need outlets that can generate and showcase new “wisdom,” that can draw audience and dollars away from the mainstream. What do you think?
re: jealousy and anyone can become president. remember back during the 2000 campaign when a boston tv reporter (notice he was well outside the beltway) tossed a pop quiz at bush re: international leaders. what was the rampaign msm response? they immediately rushed to bush’s aid, announcing the test wasn’t fair– it was so tough even *they* couldn’t get some of those quesetions right. never thinkingi for a moment that somebody runnign for president might be expected to know more re: foreign policy than a weekly mag columnist.
#27, what do you expect from Arizonans? The state is filled with the rabid dogs of conservatism, who neither read nor comprehend.
Re Parachutec @ 16, Eric Boehlert @ 17, and other comments about the MSM’s relationship with/attitudes toward the Democratic leadership: It’s got to be more than “personalities” or “not liking” particular Democratic leaders, in my opinion. Perhaps a model of “internalized racism” or internalized sexism or homophobia, in which people, including people of color, women, and gay people, who do not consider themselves racist, sexist or homophobic, nevertheless unconsciously internalize those beliefs, is going on here.
These Republicans have perfected bullying tactics and the MSM have shown who they are by how well they respond to bullying. They cower and lick the hand that beats them. SM? I don’t know how they can even be called journalists anymore since they don’t do their jobs. I’m not interested in why they identify with power and respond with cowardice to bullying, what I care about is stopping their lies.
True, wesgpc.
That’s why they gave Gucky a pass. He was the “right kind of whore” (ie. major White House access of the sort they could only dream about). Precisely who he was fucking on his many visits to the West Wing was never investigated because, as Mr. Sheri Annis reminds us, “that’s aprivate matter.”
Being a male prostitute is “a private matter” when you’re working for the Republicans.
re: that class bias - remember the “old days” of newspapering - reporters rarely had college degrees, let alone journalism degrees. They usually started as copy boys and moved up to the police beat; they didn’t get paid the big bucks even as bylne reporters. In those days, they were more likely to identify with the “trailer trash” than the elite.
I suspect that the “professionalizing” of journalism, like many other forms of credentialism, is part of the problem. Reporters with degrees in history or finance or political science, or with knock-around experience and no degree, but some travel around the real world, might have some depth of knowledge to recognize when they’re being fed bull—. Now, with their BA’s and MA’s, they identify with the upper middle class, and aspire to the upper class, where the tv stars of network news have landed with their unimaginable paychecks.
What does anyone think of this part of the theory?
Eric @ 45
Trying to measure the effect of the blogs by looking at the MSM’s reaction may be missing the point. In my humble opinion, Bush’s JARs didn’t happen because of MSM reporting of his missteps, but are more due to the increasing role that blogs, other online media, and cable shows like The Daily Show play in the media-consumption patterns of society. When Jon Stewart and his tech crew edit together a series of talking points being spun by the various spinmeisters, the more mindless acceptance of said spin by the NYT, WaPo, and others becomes proof of the idiocy at work.
true, even when msm had to deeal with DSM they fell down on the job. (lying about the memo was about ‘preparing’ for war, when it was about bush having ‘decided’ to go to war in 2002.) but at least they were forced to report it.
I’m curious. Why is it that the average citizen with internet access, the small majority that utilize it to learn about current events, seem to know more and understand more than the mainstream? It’s like information is being selectively filtered out before it even hits the television. I have a friend over in Hungary, who mentions that the local news over there airs the uncut, unedited portions of Bush generally stuttering and looking like an idiot while giving a speech. Over here in the States, the very same speech is aired with it cut. Also, the Downing Street memo was well known among the blog and various internet circles for a good year before the Mainstream Media even picked it up. I wonder if this is due to some sort of clamping down from higher up in corporate, selective ignorance, or that journalistic standards aren’t what they used to be? It’s really disconcerting when people who read the blogs and various reputable websites out there are more well informed as oppossed to someone who watches the news daily. It seems like that the vast majority of people just do not care or are not educated enough to understand the importance of an open government and well-informed society. I have the feeling that the internet, as a medium will transform society and how the government operates in the future.
Eric, would it make a difference if we had the sort of media they have in the UK? Where there are Tory papers and Labour papers, etc. Can we get some rich people to buy some media outlets? Is that a viable option, in your opinion?
The continued disappointment of the press from via Billmon.
The Oceania News Network
CNN has now picked up today’s Times’s story saying that the top commander of forces in Iraq projects troop drawdowns through 2007 — in stark contrast to the GOP’s stay-the-course position. And guess what? In the CNN story there is no mention whatsoever of the fact that the primary message of the Republican Party over the past week, delivered by party leaders and elected officials alike in every media forum imaginable, was that anyone calling for a timetable for withdrawal was embracing “retreat” and “surrender” . . . It will be striking if the media plays along with this one and fails to aggressively remind readers and viewers of just how relentlessly the GOP smeared anyone calling for a withdrawal timetable. Well, CNN has now reported on the story and not seen fit to mention it at all.”
Eric: do you attribute any of the Dems wimpiness on the war and the MSM’s support to AIPAC and it’s support of the war? They fund a lot of Dems and it seems pretty clear to me they wanted this war.
Remember Barney Frank saying that they warned all dems to NOT appear at the anti-war protest in DC?
Could fear of the Israel lobby be keeping the media in line as well? And before anyone calls me an anti-semite, know that I a Jew.
In regard to your response to #33, Sidney Blumenthal, in this “Clinton Wars” addressed this quite succinctly (regarding the Clinton hatred), stating that Clinton was not part of, what Jane and Christy call now, the “cocktail weenie” circuit. He cites Sally Quinn’s (I hope I got it right) society page in the Washington Post.
Vis-a-vis why the MSM is so disconnected, I think there is direct correlation between this whole TNR vs. left blogostan issue and the general disconnect: “They all know what’s good for us rabble, i.e. the general public.”
Finally, I feel that the GOP uses this view of the MSM, correlates it back to the definition of “liberal” and voila, you have the liberal media canard. [It is a general problem, IMO, with the establishment Democratic party, the “I know what’s good for the rabble doctrine, but that’s compeltely OT]
Can you comment on this?
The media loves sound bites and the Dems give awful ones. They are so busy triangulating their own careers that they can’t deliver a pointed provocative message like “the administration is incompetent and covers up its incompetence with lies and diversions”. We need lightning rods on the left with credibility who are willing to smack these bullies in the mouth. Great sound bites gives great TV. And when the winger media comes back to parse, hit again with another provocative comment-Dems have to stop anwering attacks and start doing the attacking. The media will have to cover it and we need to keep coming at them with what we believe in.
Dean has been pretty good on this as has Feingold and Murtha. But no way will the other presidential hopefuls do it.
If the Dems surprise people in ‘06, there may be some changes in the narraitves = Pachacutec
God I hope you’re right, but I’m not going to hold my breath - if Dems win big I see these headlines “Repubs Lose!” and a story line about how they failed to ’stay on message’
Reagan - played avunvular uncle, and they lapped it up
Clinton - I said this the other night in the Joke Line loves Chimpy thread -
Clinton was perceived as ’substance’ and most of them resented his ass for it, seeing him work the room, dazzling all different types, their self images suffered in the comparison. Whereas Chimpy is ‘form’ (ask Karl) he is a sketch, an outline, that allows them to imagine themselves as the big swinging dick, nothing substantative to chase those BMOC daydreams away
i think the msm wimpishness on the war was not unlke the democratic wimpishness on the war; both were looking for political cover and didn’t want to leave themselves exposed–politically–in case the war was a success.
It is just me, or do others perceive that it takes a while for the MSM to absorb a critical view of what they originally report without thinking? For example, today’s WaPo/NYT stories include more followup on (1) the “follow the money” wrt to Abramoff and (2) who misled us wrt to WMD and who kept putting the phony intel back in to Administration speeches on SOTU and UN. At the same time, when new stories/new topics break, like the arrest of the magnificently inept seven in Miami, the initial spin is right out of Rove’s office and it goes on CNN all day long, as though no one can remember they’ve been spun before by the same people with the same type of story.
I suppose we should be thankful that it took only a few days this time for a few reporters/papers to start asking, were these terrorists, or just dupes? Why now?
So, Eric, are we getting better? Is there a pattern?
agreed. the dems are in desperate need of message improvement. it’s tough enough from a media standpoint to be locked out of power in congress, wh, and courts. (i.e. reporters don’t take dems as seriously when they have no real power.) but to then too often be unable to articule a clear message only compounds the party’s press problem.
…the media began their overt complicity the day Reagan was inaugarated(hostage release timing….convienent anyone?)
as far as the miami terrorists arrests and the inclusion of some skeptisim just 2 days after the news broke, i guess we should be grateful journalist have learned from the past. but did it really take 5 years and countless, breathless breaking stories about al qaida cells being ‘broken’ in the u.s., before reporters wised up?
You mean when Ted Koppel started reporting every night? (@72)
On #69
Mitch McConnell, on This Weak, said exactly what you just said about the Democratic party, i.e. that they continuously are looking for political cover in regard to the Iraq situation, even to this day. Dick Durbin just let that one go - how does one get pushback if the Democrats keep on shooting themselves in the foot like this?
I’m obsessed with the question of effective countermeasures. What has been some of your media contacts’ response to the mass actions of the non-reactionary blogs? Such as those done by%u2026 I won’t mention no names, but FDL and DailyKos have been involved in some of them. For example, the mass response to the Washington Post’s double speak on partisan nature of Abramoff contributions (ie, the matter or Deborah Howell)
also: IMHO, bad Dem sound bite and unfair shakes problems their own fault. If you don’t even try…
Talcott
Are you sure the media did not begin their overt complicity during Reagan’s campaign against Carter? The inordinate attention given to the “Killer Bunny” is just one instance that comes to mind…
Re: blog readers being informed - just spent a week w/ my 87-yr. old mother. She has vision problems so recentlh cancelled her Baltimore Sun subscription. Fair enough - tough to read. But what chilled me was when she said - I don’t really need the paper, the tv news covers everything, so I get all the news anyway.”
There was no point arguing with her, so I didn’t. But…I suspect many middle-class, hard-working folks, let alone the retired, losing-their-vision ones, believe much the same. HOw do we reach them?
mommybrain @ 2:27 pm (#38) - cw=conventional wisdom (or cow watching, depending on where you live)
Or clockwise, if you’re at all technical.
71, Maybe it’s hard to take Dems. Seriously because they locked themselves out with their own foolishness.
Thank you, Eric, for your compendium of corporate-owned media failures during this Bush Administration’s tenure. As you noted the onslaught by the right against the media has been nearly four decades in the making. I don’t think we can say the press is simply not doing its job; although confessions about the nature of the corporate-owned media as a tool of the right are far and few between, this does not mean that the media is something other than a mouthpiece for the right. Ownership of the media, for example, has changed substantially over the last four decades and is now under the control of elements that are very much supporters of the right.
To what extent, in your opinion as a insider, is ownership and management of media a component of the right’s onslaught? As I see it, four decades is long enough to completely replace all journalists with two to three generations of right-leaning or at least sympathetic journalists from the business-side. Having worked for several Fortune 100 companies, I’m confident this would have been the case in any other industry; the entire workforce could be changed in a mere 15 years time, as exemplified by the IT industry.
Are there changes in public policy and practice that we should seek should progressives regain a majority in legislature to reduce the impact of any party’s ideology on the media? (Reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, for example…) Thanks again for your efforts.
re. #63
We’ve got plenty of progressive/liberal/etc. media outlets, it’s just that they’re not placed on the same footing as conservatives in the MSM, so the range of national debate is truncated. Yes, if rich people would fund them more directly, that’d help. But the fight is for legitimacy as well as as audience or funding…forcing producers to put the “balance” in “fair and balanced” on the cable and Sunday shows, rather than matching up frothing Republican pundits against timid, milquetoast democrats.
#55: Maybe I was naively hoping that someone like Murtha could change wingnut minds. So guess I was awestruck by the vitriol directed toward him.
#46: The Swiftboating has begun, see # 27.
#42: I absolutely feel that the conventional media business model is at risk. But many of the people I’ve worked with over the years look only to tonight’s ratings.. Adrenaline junkies who just assume they’ll get a better job elswhere or go work in PR if the profit tide turns.
Lots of short-sightedness. Do whatever it takes to get people to watch TODAY. Not much contemplation about the impact of credibility on long term viewership trends.
Bush’s own daughters aren’t his lapdogs.
What kind of Family Values would keep them away on Father’s Day?
http://www.latimes.com/news/na.....nes-nation
“…The Bush daughters, Jenna and Barbara, were not expected to visit for Father’s Day today…”
Tejanarusa @ 59 -
I suspect that the “professionalizing” of journalism, like many other forms of credentialism, is part of the problem
got about that far in to your comment when it dawned on me
1. omg, You’re Right, straight up
all those MBA’s coming out of school with dreams of $$$ dancing in their heads - then Boesky and Milken went to jail - and they all had to go somewhere
of course, that’s not all of it, but it could explain a clutch of the most clueless
unfortunatley i think most journalists simply lump all countermeasures under the catagory of ‘noise’ i.e. ‘oh, the left is mad at but so is the right so i must be on the right track.’ conventiently ignoring the fact that the criticism from the left is usually fact-driven, whereas the criticism from the right is usually partisan-driven. meaning they don’t like a story because it’s bad news for bush, not becasue of a journalims misstep in putting the story together.
cbl:
Don’t get me wrong, I have caveats attached to my comment. All I’m saying is electoral surprise would be, in my estimation, a necessary precondition. After that, other thngs need to fall in place for the right things (maybe) to heppen.
#78
If you are a daring soul, you call in to Wrong Smith, Bruce Idiot or that other Right Wing moron on WBAD, especially when it becomes WBOB [Ehrlich]
:)
cw==carrier wave for us old fogeys and radio technology…
re #80. i’m not a big fan of trying to bring back the fairness doctrine, mostly because politically it’s not possibly and i’d hate to see folks waste valuable time and resources chasing it.
Feingold on MTP - good debater, straight talker, rational, calm, smart, well-informed. What do you think the media scorn theme for candidate Feingold will be? What vice theme will they “discover” in his character?
Rayne #81 had a good point. And the corporate agenda of media will be a problem even after Dems gain strength. As Dems get towards tipping point, prospective Dem Congresspeople are now a “must have accessory” as TPM said a day or so ago. But suppose Dems do get a house, then problem will turn into one of being co-opted by media (I’m talking about the Dems not already in their bag, of course). I second Rayne’s question -how much is due to that. If so, is the pressure direct, or indirect through pressure to get high ratings, or indirect through emphasis on audience pleasing show business values so good demographics will keep tuning into the news show, for the same reason they do to a sit-come -to feel kind of swell for awhile.
O&Oer 2:50 pm –
Ugh. Absolutely spot on with that observation; that thread at the AZ Star is CLASSIC SwiftBoating, almost word-for-word the same tripe the SwiftBoatLiars used against Kerry.
Try it yourselves; read that thread linked through post #27 above, substitute the name Kerry everywhere you find the word Murtha. Stingingly resonant. Could almost insert the name Clinton, for that matter.
ppp 80 - There you go again (shaking head), using those durn Rethug talking points to define dems.
#91
The establishment Dems will do the same thing they did to Dean in the 02 campaign and Dr. Charles Krauthammer et al will be right there to perpetuate the insanity diagnosis. :(
#90 and feingold. that’s the scary part; what *will* be the narrative that emerges in 2008 that perhaps sinks the dem candidate. i realize not everybody thought gore was a strong canddiate going into 2000, but did anybody think the press was destroy him over ‘exaggerations’? and who possibly saw the august 2004 meida onslaught re: kerry and vietnam coming?
it’s hard enought to be elected president w/o having to worry about which rnc talking point the msm is going to latch onto during key junctures of a national campaign
Eric, do you think that the behavior of the press has had an influence on how democrats frame their statements thus making them to appear in disarray and not unified in their policies? A good example was Barbara Boxer this morning when commenting on North Korea and stating that we had to keep all options open (including taking the missle out) vs Lugar who opined for negotiation and diplomacy.
81/90 The Fairness doctrine only covered broadcast TV, not cable or newspapers etc. And I am concerned that if it were reinstated, the networks would just continue to use designated “Democrats” like Joe Klein to represent the Democratic/liberal side of “balance.” Not much help.
Eric: Thx for joining us here. I haven’t read the book yet, mainly because, as I heard you say to Sam Sedar on the Majority Report, it’s very depressing, but I have plans to read it next weekend.
My question: Do you think it is feasable to bypass the existing corporate media with a brand new publication or publications?
As I see it, the main weakness of the blogs is the lack of original reporting and the fact they are still reliant on the corporate media for most stories.
Josh Marshall has made a small start with TPMMuckraker, but do you think it’s feasable to get a new national newspaper up and running.
I would sure as hell buy it, but do you think left leaning capitalists are willing to put their money where there mouths are?
I think we need to make this jump, but will it ever happen?
Sorry if I’m rambling here.
I suppose one can take heart from the attention Kos is getting. After all, a lead columnist for the right, indeed their premier pseudo-intellectual, just wasted his Sunday NYT privilege on a attempted snark against a guy that 97.846% of Americans never hear of! And after his column, they still won’t have a clue, but they are wondering “what’s wrong with DB? It’s the equivalent of forcing the Repubs to spend $millions on Bilbray in CA50.
So the message from the right is, “these progressive bloggers are a threat to those of us carrying the right’s message, and it we get a chance, no matter how silly, to shoot at them, we have to.”
And perhaps the message is also that the progressive blogs are starting to get enough influence to make it seem unsafe for reporters/columnists to be a lapdog.