With one simple sentence, ABC News confirms the death of Beltway journalism

So widely spreading disinformation in the media is now encouraged and even welcome?

It is now up to the defamed to take down the defamers, according to this explanation. The reporters simply want to report the process of that fight. It's like the flames of hell can't lick around these folks any faster as their industry slowly dies.

ABC - The people that brought you 'Path to 9/11', a wholey fictional rewriting of history to whitewash Bush's massively incompetent, asleep-at-the-switch "leadership" that allowed America to get attacked and do nothing - before, during, or after 9/11 - to get the mastermind. Who could have imagined they have a rightwing, partisan agenda?

"While the media loves a good fight -- even when the charges are unfounded"

Doesn't that also sum up Iraq?

I think it should have said "the media loves a good fight ONLY when the charges are unfounded".

The other day I re-read Ted Kennedy's speech at Johns Hopkins on why he was opposed to the invasion of Iraq (Nukes & Spooks at McClatchydc.com had the link). Howard Dean similarly made a real barn burner of a speeeh at Drake, and DeVillpin made a great UN speech, very statesman-like. The UN weapons inspection team issued a thorough report explaining how there was no nuclear program and that the intell from the US was garbage.

The media completely ignored these well reasoned, intelligent speeches in opposition to the war, instead concentrating on "OMG WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE ... SADDAM 9/11 SADDAM 9/11 ... WE KNOW WHERE THE WEAPONS ARE ... FREEDOM FRIES ... SURRENDER MONKEYS" sort of things. Pathetic.

Forgive my self reference. I posted this last week on Kos, but it's highly relevant to this piece and underscores the obvious point that chasing the controversy is not limited to ABC. My Kos post:

This may have been a moment that passed by Media Matters' attention during the Kennedy funeral mass coverage this morning because they may have thought the media would be on their best behavior. But in case they or you missed it, let me recreate a truly stunning moment from the CBS coverage.

Anchor Harry Smith to Boston Globe reporter and Teddy biographer Peter S. Canellos (I paraphrase): We understand there's some controversy surrounding the choice of this church for the Kennedy funeral.

Canellos looks into the camera like he can't believe what he's just heard, so he repeats what he thinks he's heard to see if he's got it right: Controversy? Controversy about Teddy's funeral at this Church?

Yes, says Smith. We understand that the archdiocese has received lots of protest calls saying that the Church shouldn't be holding these services because of Kennedy's stand on abortion.

Canellos, a real reporter, puts the whole thing quickly in perspective, basically by saying (and again I'm paraphrasing): Are you out of your effin' mind, man? A Kennedy funeral Mass at a Catholic Church in Massachusetts controversial? Has NRO sent Kathryn Jean Lopez over there to give you a morning lap dance?

Before condemning Smith--and in the spirit of Teddy--let us all try to walk in his shoes for a moment. Say a note is passed to you by your producer that these protest calls have been made to the archdiocese. You're a professional journalist. On the one hand, you know that "controversy" makes essential television. You know that if you ignore news of these calls, your email and fax machines are going to be flooded by the same people who made the calls accusing you of being part of the liberal media. You know there's a good chance that FOX news has heard about these calls, and Hannity's likely gearing up to run special segments next week on how these brave but quiet Catholic voices were squelched by the MSM, the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama.

On the other hand, you also probably know that this controversy is absurd on its face; it's as phony as a Teabag protest and has been ginned up simply to capture some cheap media attention. You can probably guess that the source of these phone calls was not the archdiocese, but rather the people making the calls in a transparent attempt to bait you into "covering the controversy." You also probably know--without even Canellos having to point it out to you--that holding a funeral mass for Ted Kennedy in Ted Kennedy's church is not in the least controversial. You also probably know that as much as you'd like to do the TV thing and stir up the viewership with a false controversy, it's probably going to be pretty hard to sustain it through the singing of hymns and grandchildren reading from scripture.

The truly splendid feature of the quote is that Harris manages to exemplify what he condemns -- without pausing for breath.

First clause: the media can only narrate fights, and must therefore grant credence to unfounded charges to tell the one story they tell. Second clause: so here's some fictional foundation for the latest charges.

Dogs bark; that's what they do. The difference here is that in moments of reflection, media types bark to justify their barking.

The right-wing "coverage" of this "controversy" applies logic like a domestic abuser...

So, the right-wing tells the Obama administration, "You make me do this, so it's your fault!"

"You have to be aware of the opposition that is going to arise and have a plan to deal with it," [former Gov. Mitt Romney spokesman Kevin] Madden said.

In fewer words:
"Lady, you knew I was a snake when you picked me up."

I haven't watched ABC News since 1972, even though I liked Peter Jennings. I haven't watched ABC since 1995, they kept cancelling my favorite shows, so I quit watching the network. It doesn't surprise me at all that they wouldn't be reporting fairly, they have been schlock for years, why should that change now.

I actually think the Reps picked this up from the media rather than the media buying into what the Reps are doing. Before the Reps started just making crap up it was the media trying to make everything a contest (and if they could a controversy.) I can't remember who it was but after the 2000 election some journalist said something along the lines of "We weren't just going to let Al Gore walk to the White House for 8 weeks. That would be boring." Gore was way ahead in the polls but the media had to have a horse race so they started pushing Bush and dogging Gore. Result: a race so close it wasn't decided until December and them only because the SCOTUS interviened. Thank you so f***ing much, BTW. After the Swift Boaters pretty much got a pass from the media the Reps have figured out that they don't even need to hide behind a front group. They can say anything they want, no matter how ridiculous, and the press will eat it up. In fact the press is probably thinking 'What took them so long?' because they've been pushing this sort of crap for the better part of 30 years.

Did you mean "exclude Democratic voices" in the last paragraph? It may seem like a little thing, but why buy into the Republican attempts to redefine how the Democratic party identifies itself?

Here are the lesson plans with suggestions for teachers. Perhaps Eric Boehlert would like to stop playing the race card for a second and assure us that teachers won't simply turn into advertising agents for BHO.

The BHO plan is like something KrustyTheCClown would come up with: "remember kids, write 'I like KrustyBrand breakfast puffs' on the blackboard at school in big letters so all the other kids will see it!"

They have to get some of FOX's numbers. The suits have spoken. Respect for the institution of journalism doesn't sell adds.

"(As I've noted, when conservatives--and overwhelming white--activists get mad, it's news. When liberals do it, it's annoying.)"

And when people with black or brown faces do it--it's threatening!

The public (and by extension, the media, as the tail we all wag) has always loved a good fight.

What is new today is that they love any kind of fight: ridiculous (birthers), manufactured (tea parties), staged (town hall health care meetings). They're too scared of the "liberal bias" tag to actually report on the origins of these fights, so they superficially just cover the fights themselves.

Its as if they covered televised wrestling and pretended it was all real. Sure, that might make wrestling fans happy, but apart from being stupid it abrogates the responsibility of journalists: to inform, educate, and reveal the truth.

Journalists lament being made irrelevant by bloggers and automated aggregation services like google news: hey, here's an idea to solve that. Be relevant, by doing some actual reporting.

The last full paragraph, where you say "exclude Democrat voices"... you just fell into the same Republican/MSM-driven meme they have been pushing since Bush took office.

Should have been either "Democratic" (as in the Party's official name) or "Democrat's" (to show the possessive).

"Democrat" is only when you are talking about a particular individual.

C'mon, Eric... you start using the Repug's terminology, you have lost the argument.

(Wow. Tragic. "Lonewacko" got that right, emphasis on 'alone' and out of it. Zero Q.)

- -
Eric, you put your finger right on it ... and coulda put your eye out.

One comment recognizes "30 years" of debased 'news' (although I can't say it's "the better part" of the interval). Most surreal TV started by 'televangelists' (Falwell et al.), occupying a channel, wailing and gnashing at Roe v. Wade (settled law, 1974), slush-bucketing million$$$ per month percentage of all cable bills (that monster cash cow dispensating the mother's milk of politics), begatting the 'Silent (TV-zombie) Majority' + 'Moral Majority' and offspring 'off-his-rocker Reagan' descended into 'Newt-Contracted America' for luridly keyhole-leering lewdinsky-like at staged D.C. staffers mock-rioting outside Florida Elections Office counting-room doors, when (televangelists started) padding the leased vacancy in the 8-channel Basic Cable Package BUNDLE of the 5-few then-extant Big TV (ABC CBS NBC PBS MutualBroadcasting) network 'content' providers at the Advent of Cable TV circa 1975. So I'd say 34 years to be exact, of baseless 'news.' (Emphasizing cable TV's "BUNDLE" because 'bundle' is the definition of Latin 'fasci' and the etymology of 'fascism.' Saying since 1975 cable TV spawns the fascism in Americans and their politics.)

Anyway, the axiomatic Formula for Making TV News says: If it bleeds, it leads. Everybody knows that paradigm -- its limits dammed the Vietnam bloodbath at the levee of stacked bodybags.

The axiomatic Formula for Making Talk Radio (and TV) says: Create a conflict. Pose an artificial strawman when actual conflict is unknown, (within the broadcast reach of the effective radiated power; so see, above: evangelists' channel Talk TV voicing 'The Silent Majority' (?)thoughts).
(BTW, the Limbaugh Corollary to the axiom for Making Talk Radio: No guests. All monologue, all the time; that's when the strawman voices come into (his) mind abhorring the vacuum.)

Dan Harris merely reported the tacit open-secret recipe for gas-injected media's fizzy koolade.

Cable TV history clearly revealed channellers getting paid one-eighth of ten million subscribers billed ten 1975-dollars per month, to start, in 'television campaigns,' (whether or not anyone's home, nobody watches, all of it's nonsense, swiping donations), to 'air' imagery of indignant invisible moralists powerfully opposed to Roe v. Wade's ruling at rest in the Supreme Court ... like Joshua's trumpeters blaring beyond Jericho's walls, 'it sounds like there must be millions of them,' whereas it's all a falsity trick using audio amplification.

That (1975 cable TV) is in answer to your asking, Eric, "somebody point (you) towards the manufactured, unfounded 'controversies' hatched" in media before its present-day Obama mania.

And I can add, with the earlier commenter, that the 'Iraqis have WMDs' trump-up was also a hollow charade of non-existent constituents. Sort of surprising that you didn't remember seeing it, or see remembering it, (whichever way that works, depending on your own mind's memory's ideograms), but maybe you meant you were asking for examples only showing 'conflicts' of "manufactured" (hollow) reality against the president, and not any of a manufactured (hollow) president against reality.

And I presume, if you didn't see at the time and so don't remember now that 'WMDs' was a media manufacture where none existed in fact, that you are as likely self-blind in recognizing the media-manufactured falsehood claiming gravity has force enough to pulverize a skyscraper into a billowing mile-high and -wide dust cloud, (contrary to true facts of courtroom-admissible veracity here: http://tinyurl.com/2p8kep); and, before then in the Way Back Machine, likely memory-blind of media-manufactured falsehoods claiming ballots got counted in Florida, 2000. He!!, the entire EIGHT years of maniacal media before Obama hatched nothing but manufactured, unfounded contrivance as if Dubya had a brain in his head -- he doesn't.

But the media loves a good conflict - even when the cartoon is dumbfounded with Punch and Judy being the two hands of one puppeteer - and you, dear Mr. Boehlert, spellbound, love the media.

TV lacks and needs Republican substantiation, which is impossible to obtain since it doesn't exist; and similarly, you lack and need going out to play with a red brick and a firecracker taped on it, lighting the fuse and, after the }POP{ seeing a pile of red powder result. When you can believe a firecracker makes that, you can believe anti-gravity made a Twin-Towers dust pile choking Manhattanites. Yet, who ya' gonna call on TV, Mythbusters?

No, no, no. The media hates a good fight if it's democrats doing the fighting.

The media just loves republicans, whether they're fighting or not. They love republicans on a plane. They love republicans on a train. They love republicans here or there. They love republicans anywhere.