"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
That's quicksand, that ain't mud
An open letter to the "Gang of 500"
Dear "Gang of 500":
Did you pursue a career in journalism so you could help shed much-needed light on important topics, so you could help educate and inform your fellow citizens, so you could seek the truth and hold those in power accountable to the people they are supposed to serve?
Or did you pursue a career in journalism because you wanted to discuss whether Hillary Rodham Clinton has had plastic surgery, which candidate "looks French," and which "looked scary"?
We know of no poll that shows that respondents consider Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco residence of primary importance in this November's elections. We know of none that suggests that Tennessee voters care more about whether Harold Ford Jr. went to a "Playboy party" than they care about keeping America safe. We see no indication that the public is calling out for more "analysis" of the candidates' appearance, or even that their primary concern is how the midterm elections will affect the 2008 presidential prospects of various members of Congress.
No, the American people know what is important. Iraq is important. Capturing or killing Osama bin Laden is important. Keeping America safe, securing our ports, and preventing future attacks are important. The growing gap between rich and poor is important; the fact that millions of Americans lack health care is important.
The American people know these things are important -- and they tell you that every time you ask. You pick the poll, any poll you want: We guarantee you the poll shows that people think these things are important.
You won't find much evidence that the pressing questions on their minds have anything to do with Hillary's hair, or whether Pelosi's "San Francisco looks" turn them off, or whether the latest political ad "goes too far."
So please -- please -- use these last 10 days well. Use them to educate your readers and viewers and listeners about the things that really matter. Use the next 10 days to help people understand what the candidates want to do about Iraq and whether their solutions have worked in the past. About how we've failed to capture Osama bin Laden and what we're doing to change that. About what is happening in Afghanistan, about port security, about the budget deficit, about wage stagnation, about runaway energy costs, and about health care.
Don't just use this time to play an RNC ad -- or a DNC ad, or any ad -- over and over and over and over again. Voters will see these ads; the parties and candidates are paying for voters to see them. That's the whole point of an ad. Voters don't need you to air these ads nonstop, for free. The parties want you to do that. You're doing their bidding. You're telling voters about campaign tactics rather than issues. But campaign tactics don't keep us safe, don't keep our troops from dying needlessly in Iraq, don't put food on the table, and don't help people get health care.
We know: The vicious attacks demand attention. But not at the expense of issues that really matter. That isn't mud they're slinging -- it's quicksand they're leading you and the voters into. It swallows up and suffocates everything that gets caught in it, transforming elections that should be about Iraq, about bin Laden, about the economy, about the minimum wage, and about health care into a race to the bottom dominated by substance-free bickering. The campaigns responsible want you -- and the voters -- to get swallowed up in the quicksand. You know a radio host's attack on an actor shouldn't be the dominant story of the days before Americans choose their representatives. Your audience doesn't consider it the most important issue. So don't treat it that way.
For 10 days -- just 10 days, that's all -- use your platform to focus attention on matters of substance, not on the horse race. Don't tell us how an issue is "playing" -- tell us where the candidates stand, what they plan to do, and how they'll do it. We'll tell you how it "plays" on November 7, when we vote.
Once November 7 comes and goes, by all means, knock yourselves out telling us what our votes meant, what the future holds, what you think about the cut of Barack Obama's jib or John McCain's "steely resolve." There's plenty of time for you to do that. Plenty.
But for 10 days -- just 10 short days -- think about what really matters.
Think about why you first put pen to paper, what your motivation was the first time you asked a politician a question, what you think the highest aim of journalism should be.
Think about what makes your profession one of the highest callings a democracy has to offer, what makes journalism so essential to our existence as a nation that its freedoms are enshrined in our Constitution.
Think about the people who have fought and died for those freedoms. Think of your colleagues who have had their phones tapped, who have risked being killed in order to report from war zones, who ended up on "Enemies Lists," who have gone to jail because of their pursuit of the truth.
Did they do all that so you could bring us a story about the Democratic Party's "Two Left Feet," or about allegations that Hillary Clinton has had cosmetic surgery?
Or did they do it so you could tell us the truth about why we went to war, how that war is progressing, and what our leaders plan to do to get us out of it?
Ten days of substance. That's all we ask.
Too many recent elections have been decided based on earth tones and sighs, on windsurfing and swift-boating, on claims that are false or trivial, or both. Too many votes have been cast by voters who are misinformed about some of the most important issues of our -- or any other -- time.
The media don't bear sole responsibility for those things, of course. Our political leaders (on all sides) and those who help elect them deserve their share of blame, to be sure. And the voters themselves bear ultimate responsibility for not being better informed.
But, yes, you in the media are responsible, too; of that, there can be no doubt.
And in the next 10 days, your own performance is the only thing you can change. You cannot change the fact that some politicians will lie; that others will have great ideas but be less tactically savvy than their opponents; or that voters would rather watch Fear Factor than the evening news.
But you can make sure that those voters who read your newspapers and watch your television shows -- who try in these last 10 days to make an informed decision -- get the information they need about things such as war and health care, rather than trivia and pointless prognostication.
You can do that in these last 10 days. And by doing so, you can force the candidates (and help the voters) to talk and think about substance, about issues, about the future of our nation. Your readers and viewers and listeners need you to do that. Your nation needs you to do that.
Isn't that why you wanted to be a journalist in the first place?
Jamison, you really hit the nail on the head with:
You're telling voters about campaign tactics rather than issues. But campaign tactics don't keep us safe, don't keep our troops from dying needlessly in Iraq, don't put food on the table, and don't help people get health care.
Rovian stink is all over the latest volley of desperate crap being injected into the bouncy little balls that the MSM puppies are gleefully chasing.
Ooooo! Swallowing crap and chasing balls.
Gooooood Pupeeees!
Well,
Some eighteen months ago on these very same threads, I predicted that the George W. Bush administration will go down in HISTORY as the one who singlehandedly destroyed the Republican Party. Now, I don't claim to be a soothsayer and neither do I consult with crystal balls, BUT, Wow, if the polls are to be believed without the RW talking heads pulling out all STOPS to question their veracity, WE might witness a tsunami of voter revolt despite the last ditch 'scorched earth' vitriol of Republican incumbents WHO are now frantically distancing themselves from the President.
Why so? It is because the Republican Party of today has consummately abandoned their time-tested and long standing principles which have identified the GOP for some 100 YEARS. Through the influence of THINK TANKS with grandiose plans of Imperial Design, the current adherents of traditional Republican thought HAVE allowed themselves to be essentially transposed into the very 'MO', 'modus operandi' of WHAT they claim that their Democratic rivals have stood for................ BUT the GOP has exceeded their wildest dreams in becoming nothing less than incompetents AND petty scoundrels WHO have proven in SPADES that THEY cannot govern.
It can be succinctly stated rather easily, If YOU claim to be a CONSERVATIVE, then be One. Power for Power's sake is their new mantra, let US all be damned. I often surmise WHAT it must be like today to be a True Conservative knowing that your Party has done the unthinkable.................... committed suicide by a Thousand Cuts!!!!!!!
Sorry, You Own it......... BOO !!!!!!!!!
Foser knocks this one out of the park.
From 'Lost in the Flood' on the 'Greetings from Asbury Park' album (1973!)
And I said "Hey, gunner man, that's quicksand, that's quicksand that ain't mud Have you thrown your senses to the war or did you lose them in the flood?"
Ummm, prescient.
there is an article concerning a press release from the ohio republican party concerning franken's support of sherrod brown in the senate race. they quote franken as compaing conservatives to nazis "who should drink poison and die". only problem is that the quote comes from a fictional interview by bernard goldberg in his book "110 people who are screwing up america". the republicans also released a photo of franken wearing an adult diaper and clutching a large stuffed rabbit. only problem? it's a complete fake, with franken's head pasted on. there is no sleaze, nothing low enough, no utter lie, that the republicans won't revert to. maybe this time they are overdoing it in their desperation.
Another excellent appeal to reason -- thank you, JF and MMFA.
Thank you for explaining to these people what really needs to be reported. I hope someone listens.
In the middle of the '04 Democratic primaries, a Chicago Tribune columnist (John Kas) bemoaned, "Does anyone really even KNOW who the Democratic candidates are??" After I did a search, and found that just one, small, single article about the candidates had appeared in the paper to date, I wrote to him "Maybe it's because your newspaper has published only one story about them." I hoped he'd take my opinion seriously, but unfortunately his flippant reply was, "Do you think it's a conspiracy?"
But--I remain hopeful. Thanks, Jamison.
I hope you wrote back with "Not really, just the all-too-typical MSM sloth."
Actually, I probably would've added an adjective that rhymes with truckin', but that's just me.
I like it... it's got a good beat, and you can dance to it (that's what the kids on American Bandstand used to invariably say, when they approved of the tune).
As for the tone, it sounds almost "angry"... but don't misunderstand me; this charge being made against "anger" today is false.
I know of too many times when anger was exactly what was called for to get the job done (I know of times also when it served no purpose, anger did, other than to brand the "angry" person as just that)...
And these are times for a good healthy dose of RIGHTOUS INDIGNATION (which appears as only "angry" to those too dumb to know what RIGHTOUS INDIGNATION is... or too cowardly or too guilty, to stand up to it).
It makes the words flow effortless and true, RIGHTOUS INDIGNATION does:
"No, the American people know what is important. Iraq is important. Capturing or killing Osama bin Laden is important. Keeping America safe, securing our ports, and preventing future attacks are important."
I like it, the tune and the tone both.
Effortless and true are the words that flow forth from a RIGHTOUS INDIGNATION:
"Voters will see these ads; the parties and candidates are paying for voters to see them. That's the whole point of an ad. Voters don't need you to air these ads nonstop, for free. The parties want you to do that. You're doing their bidding. You're telling voters about campaign tactics rather than issues. But campaign tactics don't keep us safe, don't keep our troops from dying needlessly in Iraq..."
"campaign tactics don't keep us safe, don't keep our troops from dying needlessly in Iraq..."
NAILED IT.
That's what RIGHTOUS INDIGNATION does, it NAILS IT.
The concern of the American People this election year, for their Sons and Daughters in Iraq, makes for a plea to our worthless televised "media", in the (10) campaign days that remain:
"...use your platform to focus attention on matters of substance, not on the horse race. Don't tell us how an issue is "playing" -- tell us where the candidates stand, what they plan to do, and how they'll do it."
NAILED IT... that's the cry of an American People, fed up with the FOX et al.
"Too many recent elections have been decided based on earth tones and sighs, on windsurfing and swift-boating, on claims that are false or trivial, or both. Too many votes have been cast by voters who are misinformed about some of the most important issues of our -- or any other -- time."
That's the lament of an American People so hungry for the substance that feeds their Democratic process: Truth.
That's at the core of their appeal, their plea... the American People's plea to their supposed "press", to help them seize back and recapture their Government from the thieves and liars who have taken it, for purposes of power and profit and death (in Iraq!).
"Your nation needs you to do that."
Our Nation, true... it's what our Nation needs, a better Press, to make for a better Democracy and a better Democratic process.
Or why else did our Founding Fathers make the Press's protection such a high priority, as to design for it the First Civil Liberty?
(And they, our Founders, would know that also, what I had said about anger helping a man to do the job... how it does make his words flow forth, in the course of Human events, and does make for a Declaration, not of "anger", but of RIGHTOUS INDIGNATION. They built our Nation from such a substance, our Founding Fathers did.)
towering ego dept. christopher hitchens told the new yorker that he "sincerely believes" that some of his critics "when they see bad news from iraq, the reaction is simply, 'this will make hitchens look bad.' " i know that's the first thing i think. he also said: "the main problem is to have underestimated the utter evil of the other side." ?????? no, the main problem was to think we were going to walk in, overthrow saddam, and peace and democracy would break out all over the middle east. anyone who really knew the area, including just about everyone reading a daily paper, knew that. it's exactly what i thought, that we would get stuck in the middle of a sectarian war. hitchens also recounts his reaction to 9-11: "what does one do when the forces of law and order have let you down?" well, i would think that one would not jump on the bush bandwagon since it was his administration that ignored warning after serious warning. bush's august 6 2001 presidential briefing even warned of "suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings..." the government of this country should have been on full alert, but instead bush's attorney general leased a private jet and bush held no meetings and issued no orders, continuing his endless vacation.
brit was mia on fox news sunday, so there was another right wing liar. michael barone of u. s. news and world report. a news magazine, right? he claimed that the democrats position on terrorist surrveilance is "hang up the phone and get a court order", while the republicans say "keep listening". as he well knows, and if he doesn't he should not be in the position he's in, the democrats say keep listening and sometime in the next three days get a court order. and that order is almost automatic. and little billy kristol said the gop message should be "win the war" and "if we don't fight them there we'll have to fight them somewhere else". except the "them" we're fighting is not al-qaida, but iraqi insurgents determined to have their respective side take over the government of iraq. and our troops are in between. that's the plain and simple truth that slogans like "win the war" can't change.
I was flabbergasted!
Barone said that liberals want the intelligence agencies to hang up when a known terrorist calls an American, and wait until they can get a wiretap warrant.
I challenge him to find just any idiot who said that.
No one said that it was improper for the government to listen to terrorists' conversations, even if they are talking to an American. What we have said was they need to have reasonable cause to listen in to Americans' conversations and they need to get a warrant to do so, even if that warrant is after the fact.
But Barone, in the typical rightwinger lying fashion, misleads the viewers of Fox News Sunday. He lies because if they tell the truth, then they will look really stupid. If they say that Dems want to catch terrorists AND protect the rights of Americans, and Republicans only want to frighten Americans into voting for Republicans and maybe catching a terrorist or two while they are illegally imprisoning hundreds of others and creating many more terrorists around the world with their despicable tactics, they'd lose every election in 9 days.
Lying is their only tactic left.
A breath of fresh air in this polluted environment! It seems to me that these purported journalists, earned their journalism degrees and then promptly forgot the principles they were taught. Granted they show timidity in the face of corporate management, but at some point one would hope that they begin to print the truth on important matters. Michael J. Fox and the girl in the Playboy ad are not running for anything. I don't wnat or need to know what they think. I want to know where the missing 9 billion dollars went to in Iraq, who the government is wiretapping and why and how we are expected to straighten out the immigration mess. Go back and read the lectures you received in graduate school. maybe then you can become journalists and not shills.
No one in the Gang of 500 reads 1,000 word essays!! Not many people at all will read it - it's too long. This piece needs to be edited and much shorter to be effective.