NYTs' awkward attempt to hype the Blago/Obama story
December 12, 2008 8:52 am ET by Eric Boehlert
We doubt this is how the craft is taught at Columbia J-School [emphasis added]:
Although prosecutors said Mr. Obama was not implicated in their investigation, the accusations of naked greed and brazen influence-peddling have raised questions from some about the political culture in which the President-elect began his career.
Notes Dan Kennedy:
Thus does [the Times' Jack] Healy follow two crucial rules in cranking out garbage like this: use the passive voice, and darkly allude to the raising of questions.
The larger point is that in order for the Beltway press to gin up the Blago story this week, basic journalism guidelines had to be set aside and in some cases brazenly ignored. That's the only way this story worked because simply reporting the facts as presented by the prosecutors would have made it painfully clear that, in terms of Obama's involvement, there was none. In fact, Obama had thwarted Blago's money-making scheme.
But that wasn't the story the press wanted to tell. (i.e. Obama the reformer rebukes corrupt local pol.) So lots of reporters and pundits consciously, and often systematically, took it upon themselves to make the story more appealing.
Oh yeah, who are the crucial "some" at the center of the all-important scandal? The Times later ID's them as "Republican leaders." In other words, partisan sniping. Well, that is newsworthy
Although prosecutors said Mr. Obama was not implicated in their investigation, the accusations of naked greed and brazen influence-peddling have raised questions from some about the political culture in which the President-elect began his career.
This is the essence of Republican smear tactics. There's even a word for it--innuendo. It's a cheap way to avoid taking responsibility for directly lying about the object of the innuendo; after all, when challenged on the implicit lies, the "smearer" can reply, obviously with a vacantly innocent expression, "Well, I was only asking questions!"...
For the media types who peruse this thread and believe scandal sells regardless of the truthfullness I have a message for you. Keep it up and the broadcast/print media industry will go the way of music industry. All you chauffer driven NYP plate types will be lined up in Washington waiting for a bailout behind GM. WE ARE SICK OF THIS .....! Cut it out. And to the NYT, one more post that has even the shread of reasonableness and I will cancel my subscription forthwith. I'm already tired of tieing them up for recycling so maybe it wont be sucsh a loss. I'll be sure to call that one in Monday morning. But hey, maybe you can afford to loose another seven day subscriber. I have niether the time nor desire to filter my reading by author. I EXPECT IT TO BE RIGHT ALL THE TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Now some of you here may want to label me an Obamaite or any of the other slick nicknames that make for a good laugh. I'm not. I am a DAD who is desperately trying to hold on the promise of this country for his children. A veteran who until recently would have loved nothing better than to see one of kids graduate from a military academy. A Reagan Democrat, for better or worse, who believed in the Revolution minus the fire and brimstone. You are destroying US. And for what? So you can grab an extra share of the ratings for a week. Sell a few extra newspapers for a day. The music industry went down the same path, make an album with one song and sell it for $20. Janet Jackson breathed hard and that was a track. The technolgy caught up with the demand and......CAN YOU SAY APPLE TV? You are cutting your own throats and just might take the rest of US with you because there are just enough crazys out there to believe that one story that one day. THEY DON'T READ/WATCH THE OTHER SIX DAYS OF THE WEEK. So there is no balance.
MMFA you just earned my donation. And if I can make you my Redefine-Christmas charitable contribution you can count that one too. GOD HELP US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
On Fox News' "The Beltway Boys" Saturday (Dec. 13), fidgety Fred called Blagojevich the biggest
presidential scandal since Monica Lewinsky. When fellow "boy," 69-year Mort Kondracke, noted that at least Bill Clinton was involved in the Lewinsky scandal (while Obama is not implicated in the Blagojevich case), Barnes stressed that he didn't say it was as big a scandal as Lewinsky but merely the biggest SINCE then.
As usual, Barnes is looking past eight years worth of George W. Bush and
scandals such as duplicitously launching an unnecessary invasion, torturing
prisoners and shredding the U.S. Constitution in the bargain. Later in
the show Barnes lamented how Obama's attorney general pick, Eric Holder,
threatens to disturb normal operations at the Justice Department, as if
the Bush era has seen efficient, lawful conduct at Justice.
More intriguing than Barnes' latest trip to the Twilight Zone is the surge of talking points on the political right. Not only are "some people" concerned about Obama's tepid reaction to the Blagojevich complaint, they find the whole spectacle "troubling." "Troubling" . . . what better waffle word when
you can't, or won't, explain what's on your mind?
The Wall Street Journal editorial page finds it miraculous that Obama could emerge from Chicago's political cesspool untainted (the implication being that if you check further, you will discover he really
isn't untainted). Charles Krauthammer insinuates similarly. Patrick Buchanan is talking special prosecutor. Sean Hannity,
while insisting on full disclosure, says he hopes -- prays! -- that there's nothing devious in the "troubling" Obama-Blagojevich relationship.
Sure.
Fox News' Dec. 13 edition of "The Wall Street Journal Editorial Report" found Paul Gigot and his crew salivating over the prospect of Blagojevich
scandals preempting positive coverage of the Obama-to-White House
transition.
All of which shows how starved they all have been for the slightest
hint of scandal in Obama's historic victory. Meantime, it's striking to see the difference between
television and print journalism. To read only the newspapers is to see
(NY Times story notwithstanding) a general adherence to journalistic
principles. To tune in cable news is to see a wild swing to All Blagojevich
All the Time, with Fred Barnes' Monica Lewinsky allusion taking the prize thus far. To deplore it all is to be lectured on "the public's right to know" all the details no matter how distasteful they may be.
In light of Patrick Fitzgerald's explicity opening instructions to the news media (in effect, Obama is in the clear), I doubt "the public" really cares about either the president elect's "connection" with Blagojevich or a reprise of Tony Rezko,
Bill Ayers, the Rev. Mr. Wright, etc. Let's watch the polls.
Jerry Elsea