Because it's all about them.
FYI, process. We need more process stories! And we need to know what the press thinks about the process stories. (And which journalists are pregnant, of course.) Please feed us more of that crucial Beltway information. Americans deserve to know. Indeed, they demand it.
BTW, did we mention that we get the distinct impression that more and more D.C. journalists think they're in the entertainment biz?
But on Thursday, the captain was among comrades -- Mr. Kerry is an old Navy man, as is ranking committee Republican, Sen. Richard G. Lugar, who served from 1956 to 1960. Mr. Kerry, who captained a Swift boat in Vietnam during the war, clearly enjoyed talking to a fellow seafarer.
But on Thursday, the captain was among comrades -- Mr. Kerry is an old Navy man, as is ranking committee Republican, Sen. Richard G. Lugar, who served from 1956 to 1960. Mr. Kerry, who captained a Swift boat in Vietnam during the war, clearly enjoyed a taste of the seaman.
Because they're lazy and don't back up their claims.
Please read former Bush adviser, and Duke prof, Peter Feaver for the latest proof. He writes that the press has been too easy and Obama (i.e. "worship") and was way too tough on Bush. (No, seriously.) Weaver certainly has every right to push that spin. But if you're going to critique the press it's usually a good idea to, y'know, provide some examples/proof to substantiate your work.
But Feaver, like so many who whine about 'biased' press coverage, can't be bothered with specifics to substantiate his claim. (i.e. actual media citations) Zero. Nada. Zilch. Readers are just supposed to trust him.
Instead, Feaver makes lots of sweeping generalizations:
Clearly the mainstream media has not yet figured out how to cover Obama. I don't expect them to subject the Obama team to the same kind of tendentious and mocking ridicule that was the norm for so much of the Bush coverage, but nor do I expect the current prevailing double-standard to persist throughout his entire tenure. The media needs to figure out how to live up to their much-heralded (by them) watchdog role, because the media serves an essential function in maintaining a functional marketplace of ideas. When the media shirks its traditional role as skeptical truth-squadder the way it has shirked during Obama's first 100 days, public debate and public understanding of the critical issues of the day suffers.
Are you laughing out loud that a a former Bush aide is complaining about the press walking away from its watchdog role? Here's five (six?) words for Feaver: run-up to the Iraq war.
Because they're wildly dishonest.
Goldfarb [emphasis added]:
ABC runs a report showing the names and faces of two CIA contractors who may have had a role in the waterboarding of KSM and Abu Zubaydah. The network apparently outsourced this report to a freelancer named Matthew Cole.
Goldfarb builds his attack around the fact that ABC News "apparently" turned to journalist Matthew Cole. (Goldfarb says that's a no-no because Cole's "left-wing.") But I'm puzzled. How does a news organization "apparently" outsource reporting duties? Typically the best way to determine who reported a story is to, y'know, look at the byline. I guess that's how Goldfarb cracked the code of Cole's 'apparent' role in the story; because his name appears in the byline. Boy, nothing gets past Goldfarb.
Having confirmed Cole's 'apparent' involvement, Goldfarb announces that ABC News never should've allowed a former Salon freelancer to report out a controversial CIA interrogation scoop. But back to those mysterious bylines. Here's what the byline above ABC's interrogation report says:
By BRIAN ROSS, MATTHEW COLE, and JOSEPH RHEE
Goldfarb wants his Weekly Standard readers to think that the ABC scoop was the work of some fly-by-night freelancer, when in fact Brian Ross, one of ABC's most senior and veteran reporters, is the lead name on the byline.
How lousy are conservative media critics? So lousy, critics like me have to clean up after their mess.
UPDATE: Tbogg at FDL finds even more to mock in Goldfarb's weak effort.
UPDATE: As Greg Sargent notes, if the ABC investigation did have a flaw, it was the way it quickly glossed over earlier ABC reporting on interrogation practices; reporting that has recently been discredited.
Reporting on Maersk Alabama Captain Richard Phillips' appearance at an April 30 hearing presided over by Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry (D-MA) , The Washington Times' Joseph Curl wrote:
But on Thursday, the captain was among comrades - Mr. Kerry is an old Navy man, as is ranking committee Republican, Sen. Richard G. Lugar, who served from 1956 to 1960. Mr. Kerry, who captained a Swift boat in Vietnam during the war, clearly enjoyed a taste of the seaman.
Update: The Washington Times has changed the text so it now reads: "But on Thursday, the captain was among comrades -- Mr. Kerry is an old Navy man, as is ranking committee Republican, Sen. Richard G. Lugar, who served from 1956 to 1960. Mr. Kerry, who captained a Swift boat in Vietnam during the war, clearly enjoyed talking to a fellow seafarer."
That's the only reason I can figure out how this on-going, and completely unprecedented, media narrative that Obama's press conferences aren't entertaining enough continues to gain momentum. Based on the Nexis searches I've done, the WH press corps has never, ever used that as a way to critique pressers. The absurd yard stick has been invented out of whole cloth for Obama.
Among other things, we're dealing with a level 5 pandemic alert regarding the swine flu outbreak (Obama sounded, the LAT childishly pointed out, "more like school nurse in chief than commander in chief"), closely following a major counter-attack by Pakistani military this week against the Taliban, and continuing to discuss the ramifications of the recent release of Bush-era secret memos establishing the legal justification for interrogation techniques like waterboarding.
Obama, sandwiched between a nominal celebration of his accomplishments and a public wondering whether it should start wearing masks on the subway, chose simple over stirring. It seems unreasonable to so vigorously call that boring. The accompanying no-new-news accusations—which seems to stem from the same what, no thrills? impulse—just come across as peevish; as we've discussed here before, pressers may be about gaffes, gotchas, and maybe even about encouraging civic participation, but they've never been about breaking news.
But why? Why would so many in the press advertise their lack of seriousness by glomming onto such an overtly shallow talking point? I think it's because journalists, and especially the Village elites, see themselves as being in the entertainment business, and not the news business; not the public service business. And so their knee-jerk response is to announce whether official White House functions were fun and entertaining to them, and to pretty much ignore the traditional ways the press has covered and analyzed those events in the past.
WARNING: NSFW or home or reasoned political discourse for that matter.
Can't wait to see what Red State will have to say during the confirmation hearings. Sigh.
From the Fox Nation: