Media menu: Scrutiny, with a side order of sound judgment
The blogger Digby recently mentioned to me that the media, after years of deference to President Bush, are about to lurch back toward the excessively critical approach they took toward President Clinton:
Just as they treated Bush with extraordinary respect in reaction to their heinous behavior during the Clinton years, the villagers are now preparing to treat Obama with skepticism in reaction to the failures that resulted from their fawning obsequiousness.
Oddly, these lurches always seem to disfavor the Democrats.
Digby's concern is shared by many progressive media critics, this one included. Which is not to say that the media should treat Barack Obama the way they treated George Bush for much of his presidency. That's a key difference between progressive media critics and those on the right -- we want the media to do their jobs better, while conservatives are not particularly fond of the concept of journalism and won't be happy unless the media act as the propagandists of the conservative movement.
Take, for example, Brent Bozell, the founder and president of the conservative movement's premier media criticism organization, the Media Research Center. In 1998, at the height of the Monica Lewinsky soap opera, Bozell complained that the news media weren't devoting enough attention to the controversy. On the day Bozell offered that bizarre complaint, there were more than 500 news reports that mentioned Clinton and Lewinsky. Yet Bozell was upset that the media had "stopped" covering the story.
That isn't the legitimate complaint of an honest person who believes in the importance of a free and fair news media; that's a cynical ploy coming from someone who sees the media as a club with which opponents can be bludgeoned. Similarly, conservatives bent on shielding the Bush administration from scrutiny responded to media scrutiny by implying -- and sometimes saying outright -- that the journalists who dared raise questions were traitors.
Most progressive media critics, on the other hand, see a vibrant and functioning media as essential to democracy. We don't want to see the media treat Barack Obama with the overt scorn they directed at Bill Clinton, snooping around his bedroom and spreading lies large (Vince Foster conspiracy theories, for example) and small (the airplane haircut that didn't delay traffic at LAX) -- but neither do we want the media to obediently type up whatever he says without question, as they did during the run-up to the Iraq war.
So, yes, the media should be more vigilant -- and less compliant -- in their coverage of Barack Obama than George W. Bush. If, for example, memos are revealed that depict President Obama manipulating intelligence to take us to war against a nation that didn't attack us, the media should not ignore those memos. If he lies about everything from war to cheese, as his predecessor did, the media should make that clear.
So the recent announcement by PolitiFact.com, the St. Petersburg Times' political fact-checking operation, that it plans to closely track Barack Obama's progress in keeping his campaign promises is an encouraging sign that the news media will apply to Obama the kind of substantive scrutiny Bush too often escaped.
Unfortunately, PolitiFact's effort seems to lack a much-needed sense of perspective. PolitiFact has compiled a list of what it describes as 510 promises Obama made during his presidential campaign and plans to rate each a "Promise Kept," a "Promise Broken," or a "Compromise."
But PolitiFact does not distinguish between promises large and small, or between those that are urgent and those that might well be considered luxuries during times of economic crisis. Instead, it lumps them all together in a list of 510, topped by a box score tallying up the number of promises kept, broken, compromised, stalled, in the works, and with no action taken.
And so Obama's promise to "get his daughters a puppy" is given as much weight as his promise to "sign a 'universal' health care bill." His pledges to "push for a college football playoff system" and to "expand access to places to hunt and fish" are treated as though they are as important as his promises to extend unemployment insurance benefits and restore habeas corpus rights and end warrantless wiretaps. His promise to "expand the Senior Corps volunteer program" and his promise to "direct military leaders to end the war in Iraq" are given equal treatment.
President Obama has inherited a nation that faces serious problems. The news media will not serve their readers and viewers well if they obsess over whether Obama has kept 64 percent of his promises or 72 percent -- or if they pretend that a college football playoff system is as important as a successful economic recovery package.
To be clear: This is not an argument against holding Obama accountable; it is an argument for focusing such efforts on the things that matter most. Few Americans will mind if some of the less urgent promises go unfulfilled as long as the nation's economic conditions improve, the war in Iraq comes to an end, and we have a president who views the Constitution as something more than a list of optional recommendations. And few will be much impressed that Obama got his daughters a puppy if those other things do not come to pass.
The mess Barack Obama inherited constitutes a challenge not only for his administration and lawmakers of both parties, but for the media as well. Serious times require serious journalism -- an appropriate equilibrium between the outright hostility with which reporters covered Bill Clinton and the obsequiousness that marked their coverage of George W. Bush. But an appropriate level of scrutiny is not enough; it must be joined with sound judgment about where that scrutiny is most important.
Jamison Foser is Executive Vice President at Media Matters for America.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01232009/news/politics/prez_zings_gop_foe_in_a_timulating_talk_151572.htm
I know, OT, but that needed to get out there.
HT: Matt Drudge
Yupper!
In the mean time I'm getting some scuba gear. It could happen, but I see no quickness to be about it.
A strong media has no chance of doing anything other than getting in the way of the people cleaning up the big mess.
The media attached itself to the republican party, therefore it too lost the election and deserves marginalization. The media is physically incapable of carrying out its proper role, therefore anything it does will be the same sort of petty obstructionism that the senate minority will do.
Normally I'm all for democracy and checks and balances and stuff, but today's republican party can't play its proper role under any circumstances and neither can the media. Therefore it's one-party rule until they see the error of their ways and beg forgiveness.
Pretty bleak, bruh.
As the Onion said, Black man given US's worst job.
Clearly, this isn't the first time a black man has had to clean up one of shrub's messes. I doubt it will be the last.
MMFA,
Could you please give citations for those 500 news report on Lewinsky? The same AP story running in 500 newspapers doesn't stand up to 'scrutiny.'
Google "Lewinsky + (insert name of newspaper here)" and tell us what you find out.
Nice try. The same AP story runing in 500 newspapers, even if that was what happened, would still mean the press had demonstrably not stopped covering the story.
Wrong. The same story running in 500 different newspapers means that the story is being covered in 500 different newspapers.
Sorry for the duplicate post; I didn't read down before posting myself.
One reads/hearssees in the Media what one wants to read/hear/see. You see deference, others see bias, you see bias, others see deference. I saw/heard Chrissy M on TV today during a break and it made me shake my head, considering what has been said about Chrissy here over the past couple of years.
When Chrissy said that Bush glistens with sunny nobility, I hope we agree on the bias he was showing.
When Chrissy said that a thrill goes up his leg when Obama speaks, I hope we agree on the bias he was showing.
We aren't dealing in arcana here. It is possible to determine what the media is really like. The real clincher should be to compare how often the media is dishonestly biased against liberals vs how often the media is dishonestly biased against conservatives.
Is, using Chrissy as the example, it really dishonest to say "Bush glistens........."? Or is it merely a perception of the reporter? The same with the Obama phrase. Sure, he and others show what we perceive to be bias, but is it really planned dishonesty or just human fraility showing through? Is it really possible to determine what the media is really like from this? Just as MRC will "twist" reports to show what they feel is liberal bias, MMFA will "frame" reports to show a conservative bias. Sadly, too often, most readers will take the original report, or the followup synopsis, at face value and determine in their own minds that the reporter is being "dishonest" when it is merely the reporters own feeling showing through.
I should have emphasized being wrong over being dishonest, because most media figures don't analyze faulty conventional wisdom.
A media figure will be biased for/against a liberal/conservative because of:
- something that is true
- something that is meaningless hyperbole
- something that is false
The first two don't bother me, and I think it's worthless to count them. The viewer can easily see through it. It's the third one that bothers me, and I think that's what will show an overall conservative bias. How many of MMFA's posts fit the third category? How many of MRC's? I think it's very lopsided.Personally I think most of the MMFA posts more closely resemble hyperbole and premeditated biased perception - very few truly inthe third category. The "right" is much the same. I truly wish we could have inytelligent dialog instead of he said, you said, no we said but you said, etc.
Let's take a look at MMFA's front page:
We have a claim that people who don't pay income taxes don't pay taxes, a claim that 61 released detainees have returned to terrorism, a claim that $223000 was spent on each new job in the stimulus package, a claim that the lack of terrorist attacks proves that torture is what made it happen, and a claim that Obama's inauguration cost 4x Bush's.
All of those are category 3 conservative bias. You are blind.
Anyone, like MMFA and other commentators herein, can play with words and claim bias. But to say something is a falsehood - basically calling the author fo the comments a liar, requires proof. Sometimes, when key information is wuthheld the viewer is left with no alternative but to put 2 and 2 together to get 4.
1. Do we know beyond any reasonable doubt that those that have said rebates are going to those that pay no taxes meant no taxes whatsoever or no income taxes? And "rebate" usually means receiving back something paid and as noted herein fuel levies, FICA, vat sales, etc. are payments to entities other than the one supplying the "rebate" under the Obama/Pelosi plan.
2. Where is teh data which proves 61 detainees did not return to terrorism? MMFA did not even show proff of just 1 of those 61 not returning to terrorism. Why not?
3. Stimulus package devided by the number of jobs Obama's press ecretary said would be created comes out plus or minus the value you note above. Where is the proof that the cost per job is something different? Neither you nor MMFA offer any insight into what the number is if the $223,000 is the wrong number.
4. "Lack of terrorist attacks?" Where is teh proof there have not been any further terrorist attacks? Neither you nor MMFA can say with certainty there have been no further terrorist attacks.
5. Oh yea the debate over innauguration costs. Agree not 4x but at least 2x. If you actually read and analyze the MMFA piece when toalling the Bush number they added not only the "protection costs" but also threw in the "cost for a day off for all washington government workers". A real careful read will show they never tally or estimate a similar number for Barak. Nor do they talk about the exhorbitant costs now being tqlked about to clean up the mess following that joyful celebration of the supposed "greenies". Again I call for a like-to-like side-by-side tally so we can get a fair comparison. How about it MMFA? As protectors of the truth, let us see the truth!!
All i want is straight and clear facts and issues of substance so we can get to work to fix this broken economy.
We're dealing with media criticism here, not policy analysis. The distinction is clearest in the 61 detainees example. The media falsely stated what the pentagon said. The end. No analysis of the detainees is necessary. No analysis of detention policy is necessary. All we need is a comparison between what the pentagon said and what the media said.
(And of course there's a distinction between lying and stating something that is false.)
"All i want is straight and clear facts and issues of substance" -- a media watchdog site can help you figure out if you're being fed BS. But the rest will have to come from other sources.
I think you're way too kind, Steeve. I would expect a "worldly" person to have picked up some notion of objective reality, and to understand the idea of proving a negative vs. reporting the opposite.
That's funny Colonel, "objective reality" is a problem for Mr. R in another post as well.
Sorry but my engineering background only allows black or white with very little use for shades of grey.
No, it has more to do with your RW mindset. Everything is black/white, no shades of grey - just like Limbaugh, Hannity, Oreilly.
Engineering has nothing to do with it. I'm a software engineer, and tolerate lots of grey...
;o)
Funny... I'm an engineer and I see NOTHING but grey - becasue THAT'S HOW THE WORLD IS!!! People like you give engineer's a bad name. There's very little, if anything, that black and white and SCIENTISTS and ENGINEER'S should know that best! You fail Scientific Reasoning 101, my friend.
I hope you're joking.
At the outset, I would like to say that I appreciate posters who articulate their grievances so well, and out of respect for the efforts you have made, I will respond to each of your statements in kind:
1) There is a very clear way to tell this. Those that have been highlighted in MMFA's columns have said "don't pay any taxes," NOT "don't pay income taxes." Proof <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200901120008?f=s_search">here.</a> "Any" refers to all applicable items of a kind. If I say "I don't own any cats" no one could plausibly argue that I only mean that I don't own Siamese cats.
2) These numbers come from the Pentagon, and the burden of proof is on the Pentagon to communicate accurate numbers. I find it highly unlikely that MMFA has the type of security clearance that it could definitively prove that the Pentagon's numbers are right or wrong. By your logic, it would then be impossible to criticize any numbers coming from the Pentagon, which would hardly be conducive to a healthy democracy. Furthermore, neither MMFA or any civilians know who the vast majority of these suspects are, because the Pentagon has not released names, which makes their information suspect, as discussed <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200901230002?f=h_top">here.</a> More importantly, the Pentagon itself has confirmed only 18 suspects (again, unnamed and largely unsubstantiated), not 61, so media outlets claiming 61 are including "suspected" returns but treating them as "confirmed" which is a blatant exaggeration.
3) Simply wrong. MMFA does provide insight into why that is the wrong number <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200901230010?f=h_latest">here</a>, stating "these media figures ignored other tangible benefits stemming from the package, such as infrastructure improvements and education, health, and public safety investments." Dividing the cost of the stimulus package by the number of jobs is just as nonsensical as implying that a doctor's office makes a certain amount of money "per job," by dividing the billing income by the number of people working there, and implying that should be their take-home pay, while not considering the cost of the equipment, lab work, medicine, building upkeep, etc. which does not go into the pocket of the workers, but is nonetheless absolutely necessary for those people to be gainfully employed.
4) You've misstated the aim of the critique. MMFA is not stating that their have not been any more terrorist attacks, they are saying that there <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200901160007?f=s_search">HAVE</a>. It is the media's implication that there have been no further terrorist attacks that is the misinformation MMFA is trying to correct, and more importantly, the implication that it is Bush's policies that have <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200901220018?f=h_latest"> "kept us safe"</a> despite evidence to the contrary.
5) To be fair, the exact cost of Federal dollars spent on Obama's inauguration won't be known for a few months, so I cannot at the present time give you an exact cost, but I will say that even if it is larger, the event had vastly more people than Bush's 2005, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/countyfair/200901220003"> 1.8 million compared to 400,000</a>. Granted, there are fixed costs regarding security for a President of the United States, even if there are only 10 members of the public around him. But, it would be perfectly justifiable to have more expensive security costs (even, I would argue, 2x, although you provide no substantiation of that figure whatsoever) to manage 4.5x as many people. But, more importantly, this controversy revolves around the media moving the goalposts just in time for Obama's inauguration, where for previous presidents they had reported the privately-raised funds for social events, in which case BHO and GWB are quite similar, <a href="http://mediamatters.org/columns/200901170003">45 to 42.5 million</a>, respectively. When adjusted for inflation, Obama actually appears to have spent <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_barack_obamas_inauguration_really_cost_4.html"> less</a> on social events. If you are claiming that Obama's inauguration numbers do not include a day off for government workers or cleanup costs, it is your responsibility to post a link to that effect, not idle speculation. (Also, don't be surprised that 1.8 million people in a confined space, even *trying* to be tidy, are undoubtedly going to make a mess!!)
So, thank you for keeping your discussion issue-based, but I am sorry to say that each of your points is eminently refutable.
Sorry about the broken links!!
Thanks for the time you spent on a thoughtful response - more than most would do.
1. The main aspect of my reply was MMFA made a mountain out of a mole hill. You are correct that those saying "pay no taxes" when they meant "pay no income taxes" are being sloppy for effect and headlines.
2. OK we need more data, but we are talking about splitting hairs when we get into confirmed and suspected.
3. Your doctor example is precisely my point - without being given some idea as to the extent of the "equipment" necessary to do the job there is no way to tell how far off the number is. If teh MMFA point is only that the number reported is wrong - then I will conceed that 100 experts looking at the same data would come up with a 100 different numbers and all would be wrong. the issue is more about getting things in the right ballpark - not just more rhtoric in response.
4. and 5. I guess I have a real problem when MMFA cites articles from the NYT or WaPo as "evidence". Both of those papers recently fell off the left side of the world and calling that evidence would be similar to me quoting a article by my mom that I am a brilliant person. It would be nice if the links used as evidence were to reports filed with the government wherein people have to put treal numbers instead of hyped expectation. The goal posts have moved - and that was unfair. As for my 2x - basic math. If you look at the quoted number of security personnel - then that aspect of cost should be close to 2x. I fyou count people not at work - again the numbers would suggest a much higher cost in 2009 if you believe the estimated attendance numbers. It should be impossible for anyone to believe the two were near equal if you belive all the other reportsd that say 2009 was the biggest and greatest of all.
Thanks for your response.
1) I actually think that's a much bigger deal than making a mountain out of a molehill--these types of arguments were used for the specific purpose of pretending these tax cuts were "wealth redistribution" and "turning the IRS into a welfare agency," falsely claiming that people were getting money without paying any. It was the opposite of sloppy, it was distinctly misleading--if "income taxes" were clearly stated, that whole argument would not be made.
2) I think overestimating or exaggerating the number of terrorists "returning to the fight" is a deliberate scare tactic to prevent the return of the rule of law to our detainment practices, and as such the difference between "confirmed" and "suspected," especially when no further evidence is offered, is a very important distinction indeed.
3) You see, making such a back-of-the-napkin calculation is NOT getting things in the "right ballpark" at all. Things like building a bridge or extending healthcare have HUGE costs that do not go to the salary of new workers, and so to frame the issue as though money is being wasted by costing 230,000 per job is flatly false. Also, as MMFA pointed out in their article, other aspects--extending unemployment, health care, infrastructure renewal, etc--all have other measurable benefits in ADDITION to job creation, so to divide the costs only over newly created jobs does not give a remotely accurate benefit-per-cost analysis.
4 and 5) As Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias." It is a strategy going back to Lee Atwater and Richard Nixon to declare the media is liberally biased to try to shirk off difficult reporting. Throwing something out simply because it comes from a "liberal" source (by which people seem to mean, not Rush Limbaugh...) doesn't do due diligence--you actually need to provide concrete evidence for why the claim made is not true. With regard to the inauguration, Bush's expenses are a matter of public record, and Obama's will be in a couple of months, so you can obtain government sources for those if you wish, and if you doubt the NYT's reporting to such an extent (and FactCheck.org, by the way). You can't just expect that double the number of security guards means double the cost, because you don't know how many are Secret Service, how many are elite Sharp-Shooters, city/state police, or just hired nightclub guards to keep people in line (of which there weren't enough, by the way, leading to some potentially dangerous situations--I would much rather shell out for some more security guards than run the risk of people trapped in a tunnel!) and what the relative salaries are for each. So, you actually need much harder data than that to claim that Obama's inauguration cost 2x as much as Bush's--besides, if there were any plausible claim that it would cost $300 million, don't you think Fox News would have used that number?!
The problem with modern journalists is that they are not journalists. For whatever the reasons many Americans have joined a political movement that is not given a name, but hides behind words like conservative, patriotic, security, protection, but it is in fact none of these. The political philosophy they are running toward is fascism. A couple of years ago a republican representative stated that there were fascists in the Republican Party. The idea is to make government subservient to the interests of big business and big business associations. The effort to do this is treasonous, because under the political philosophy of a democratic republic the government serves the people it does not disrespect them or behave in a callous manner toward them, because it is entirely dependent upon mutual respect.
Certain conclusions have been reached that are disturbing. The idea that what is good for business is good for America has a nice sound to it, but the fact is that business cannot be trusted to have America's best interest. After all, it is big business that has corrupted the politicians so that they serve its interests over those of the people. It is business that is pushing the fascist anti-American agenda of division and distrust through its toadies in the news media.
The most disturbing aspect of the careerist view of life is that everything is subjugated to success. Therefore, if one wants to be a foreign policy advisor it is not in his interest to disagree with his superiors so he becomes a mirror of whatever his superiors have already concluded. One is considered realistic if he strokes his superior's ego and tells him what he wants to hear, but the advisor is only "acting" in his role, not "being" in it.
It is considered unwise to "rock the boat" and one must conclude that it is a "dog eat dog world." Civilization presumably has carried us all the way to cannibalism. Sharing is communism, fairness is socialism, and acceptance of deception as common and useful is capitalism. When liberals talk about openness, transparency, and adherence to the Constitution and the "rule of law,' the right wing perceives liberals as inexperienced. If one does not play the hierarchal game it is because he is naive'.
Business favors cynicism, distrust, and isolation as the means of controlling America's vast population. Liberals believe that people are at their best when the voluntarily submit to the rules, because of their belief in the nation's ideals they independently support the concept of protecting the general welfare. Liberals realized that we are are connected in ways that are not easily seen; while the right wing sees people as fodder units fighting over the last scrap of food. This argument serves the right's agenda, because it justifies the actions of those who want all the power and most of the money.
Our jounalists betray us, because they want to keep their jobs. After all they are rewarded quite handsomely for being likeable to the public and subserviant to the establishment. Many of them believe that fascism is a more practical and efficient means of governance; therefore, journalists do not act negatively toward its proponents who disguise it as a business interest or improvement in efficiency. Meanwhile the war against America's middle class continues.
As usual, I'm a fan of the type of ethical and unbiased media reporting that is espoused by Foser. His articles generally present a fair-minded approach even though his politics are liberal.
Are the media outlets biased left or right? The answer is always in the eye of the beholder...cons profess liberal bias and libs profess conservative bias. The larger point is that both sides think the media does a pretty sorry job.
However, this is not one of Foser's better efforts.
He lurches into gross generalizations when he says things like "That's a key difference between progressive media critics and those on the right -- we want the media to do their jobs better, while conservatives are not particularly fond of the concept of journalism...".
That's an inane argument...lumping all media into two categories...one being bad and one being good...based on political ideals. There are political shills in the media from both the right and the left. To name a couple...Bozell on the right and Olbermann on the left...yet it's a huge over-reach to assign the high ground only to liberal media members.
Foser's take on the efforts by PolitiFact points out a more disturbing aspect of todays media...their elitism...amply portrayed by Foser and this article.
When Foser writes, "PolitiFact does not distinguish between promises large and small...Obama's promise to "get his daughters a puppy" is given as much weight as his promise to "sign a 'universal' health care bill" he clearly feels that the American public is too stupid to recognize the difference...and that is unabashed elitism.
Additionally, Foser says, "Serious times require serious journalism...But an appropriate level of scrutiny is not enough; it must be joined with sound judgment about where that scrutiny is most important..."
Well, I'll tell you this for nothing...I don't need Foser or any other reporter telling me what is important to me. Most Americans who are sitting up and taking nourishment can figure out the difference between the promise of a new puppy and health care.
I'll take this effort by PolitiFacts every time as opposed to the tripe presented by the we're-smarter-than-you media's biased and agenda driven reporting.
Elephty and Wesley:
Hat's off for two excellent posts. It owul be nice - but i know only a dream - that MMFA and their main contributors would actually exhibit responsible journalism with true investigative analysis. Another saying - something about people in glass houses??!!!
MMFA does do good analysis, that you're willing to discount it because you don't like their analysis is something different entirely don't you think?
MMFA, if you haven't noticed, place conservative misinformation into the mouths of the people that say them, they don't make this stuff up.
I hear what you're saying but I really have to argue with you about your Politifact analysis. If you've actually looked at the website, it really just is a bar graph of promises kept and promises broken. And yes, you can click on the links and read through the said 510 policies, but I'm a political junkie and I don't have time for that, let alone a typical American who only has a passing interest in politics. Looking at the graph, on their home page, you can't tell whether the promises kept or broken are worthwhile or not. Foser isn't implying the American public is stupid, but lazy, or at least hurried.
I actually like the Politifact website a lot, but I can tell you that during the election they looked a bit biased, or at least ridiculous, when they had a flashing truth-o-meter "pants-on -fire" symbol about an off-the-cuff remark no one could take serious. On a brief glance, it DOES conflate the serious and the trivial, and that can't be good for serious political discussion.
-- you can click on the links and read through the said 510 policies, but I'm a political junkie and I don't have time for that -- Mrs. T
If you're truly a political junkie...how could you turn down contextual analysis of the news? Could it be that you're only looking for news stories that you agree with?
I'm not here to defend PolitiFacts...there are many informative websites which provide in-depth analysis of the news...to each their own. But, it strikes me as a little odd that a self-professed political junkie would find fault with a site because it provides too much info.
PolitiFacts is well organized with about 60 subsets of topics. It only takes a few clicks to reach the info on any given topic...if you're really interested.
There is really no remedy for the "lazy or at least hurried" consumers of news...who rely on a "brief glance" for their daily news...I get what you're saying.
You professed an interest in "serious political discussion" so I'm quite sure you can determine what is trivial or serious. And more info...rather than less info is a good thing.
Unlike the "good old days" when Walter Kronkite spoon fed the American public the daily news...filtered by his own political bias.
I think you've misunderstood me a bit. I actually WILL defend Politifacts, I thought they were invaluable during the campaign. In fact, the "pants-on-fire" thing I was referring to if I recall was about something Sarah Palin said that seemed too silly to mention (and I feel she said enough bone-headed things that you didn't have to stoop that low). I don't think I have a bias against stories that I disagree with. My bias runs more against the innane.
I don't really have a problem with their bar graph or analysis. I guess my problem is with including the trivial things. Say I look at the website and go, "my God, Barack has broken 3 promises in 2 days!" And then I click to find out what they are, and turns out it's 1) hasn't gotten a puppy 2) hasn't repainted the Lincoln bedroom, and 3) hasn't attended every White Sox game. Am I going to be more or less likely to check back on the site for more "promises" updates? I'm surprised you'd defend that - seems like an opening story for the Today show. Sure, it might be an interesting human interest story to know he got his dog from a breeder rather than a shelter, but is that REALLY info we need to know about a President?
Well said, Mrs.T...I get your drift.
If I understood the original poster correctly, she was implying that EVEN as a political junkie, looking up the context on 510 items is a little extreme, and then estimates from that what interest a less-motivated political person would have, quite rightly in my view.
I usually like PolitiFact, too, but they do have wide disparities in the seriousness of their items, so doing a straight percentage vote is misleading, and would be especially so for someone who didn't look up all the background.
What world are some of you ignorant morons from?
Let's look at Mr. Foser's statements, and see how you stack up against the facts.
Foser points out a comment Digby recently made: And Digby was, in fact, correct. It's proveable, and has been done so more times than I can count, that generic media coverage (including tv, radio, printed material, and internet) was biased against Clinton, and in favor of W. Foser agrees with Digby. It's a fact.
Foser 1, Posers 0
Foser says Progressives, "want the media to do their jobs better, while conservatives are not particularly fond of the concept of journalism and won't be happy unless the media act as the propagandists of the conservative movement."
The concept of journalism is to report the things that are going on - the news - to the public. Whether or not the public LIKES those things, or enjoys the basis of the news - the basis of which is reporting on the CHANGE in things that happen, as opposed to advocating for something, like for things to remain the same - is not a concern of the true journalist. Journalism is reporting on the way things change. Progressives, generally, enjoy change. Conservatives, enjoy things remaining in a status that benefits them, forever.
Because of journalists reporting on things that change, the public can then act to shift things to what benefits them the most. Conservatives don't like that, because they think things should ONLY benefit THEM. Any action that threatens that conservative status quo - especially giving people information so that that they can make their own decisions - is considered an evil that must be eradicated.
Therefore, conservatives hate journalism.
Foser 2, Posers 0
Then there's the comment about Bozell, a reich-wing hack, who wouldn't know truth if it stabbed him in the chest. [Don't worry - it wouldn't kill him. He'd have to have a heart for that to happen.] I'd be willing to bet Mr. Foser has, indeed, the numbers of Clinton/Lewinsky reports correct.
That's part of his job.
In fact, if any of you Posers would like to have him produce the details, and drown you in your own ignorance, I'm sure Mr Foser can do so.
The point that Foser was trying to make was, even at the height of the Lewinsky story, the shills on the reich-wing (like Bozell) were gnashing their teeth, bitching and moaning that the Lewinsky story wasn't front-page, 200 pt headlines, 24-7, wall-to-wall-to-wall-to-wall-to-floor-to-celing coverage.
And, he's right. It WASN'T covered that way - nor should it have been.
Foser 3, Posers 0
I could go on all day on this, but I'm not in the mood to.
The facts, all the way through, are on Foser's side.
And the reason, while worded strangely by "elephty" is fairly obvious: journalists are people too. Journalists also like to eat, wear clothes, and pay their bills. They like to take care of their kids, and take warm showers. And they'd REALLY like to practice their craft, AND get paid for it.
All of which means keeping your job.
Wesley, you don't seem to "get it" - reich-wingers DON'T like journalism. They never have. They DO prefer a fascist state of being; their masters tell them what to say and write, with their daily talking points, and they go off to find & manipulate information to back up the talking points they've been given.
Foser's generalization IS the truth. I should know. I've worked in media - radio and newspapers, mostly - for about 15 years. And the industry has gotten progressively WORSE during that time. If you report the "wrong" thing, you WILL get fired. Period. Doesn't matter if you're factually correct.
What DOES matter is: did you make an advertiser or investor angry today? If the answer to that is "no", you get to keep your job.
That's NOT journalism. That's pandering.
You say, Wesely, that, "When Foser writes, "PolitiFact does not distinguish between promises large and small...Obama's promise to "get his daughters a puppy" is given as much weight as his promise to "sign a 'universal' health care bill" he clearly feels that the American public is too stupid to recognize the difference...and that is unabashed elitism."
Obviously, you haven't MET the great horse-brained masses that comprise the potential audience of most journalism.
Far too many of these people couldn't count their balls or breasts and get the same number twice. They're lucky breathing is an autonomic response, because they'd be dead otherwise.
Lining out what IS important and what is NOT important - what should be given more weight - is EXACTLY part of what journalism IS; otherwise, journalism is just steam-of-consciousness blather.
The media SHOULD be smarter than the average public at sussing out what IS important information and what isn't.
THAT'S THEIR JOB.
Think of it in another way.
I'm not a welder. I barely know how to weld. If I need something welded, I'm going to a welder.
I'm not a doctor. I have no idea what some drugs or treatments will or won't do to me. If I feel ill, I go to the Doctor to get information on what I need to do to feel better.
Some of you idiots are obviously not journalists. When you need to know what's going on, you go to the TV, the internet, the printed news mediums, or the radio. And you listen, watch and read information that someone who (nominally) IS a journalist provides to you.
Journalists MUST be smarter and better at getting information than their audience.
Otherwise, why would their audience need them?
Your comment, wesley, reminds me of those ignorant inbreds who think their President should be someone they can sit down and feel comfortable having a beer with.
You had that. For EIGHT long years.
It didn't work.
We Progressives said the President should ALWAYS be the smartest and wisest person in the room, in EVERY room he or she walks into.
We now have someone who fits that bill fairly well.
Elections have consequences.
One of those consequences is the stupid people don't get to make the rules anymore. They also don't get to laud stupidity over intelligence anymore.
Now take your cup of "Shut-The-****-Up", and go sit in the corner.
If you pay attention, you may even learn something.
Like how to be a REAL journalist.
AS SOON AS YOU REALIZE THAT WE ARE IN ---> CLASS WARFARE
it ALL becomes clear to you....
There are THE RICH and THE NOT-RICH...
Those who are rich want things to remain the same... as they have since the days of Kings and Serfs. Occasionally there is a wealthy person who seeks "fair play" but there are not many.
FOR THE WEALTHY there is nothing but stealing from the rest of us.
ANY "REGULAR JOE" or "JOE THE PLUMBER" who votes REPUBLICAN has been fooled into thinking he is wealthy OR that they care about us.
The End
Thank you very much
It is not the Main Stream Media, It is the CORPORATE CONTROLED MEDIA. As for CCM bias I always look to the reporter from IRALAND that really ask Bush a hard Question. She was banned from the US and msde to leave the US in 24 Hrs. Just go back and check this out. The CORPORATE CONTROLED MEDIA is all REPUBLICAN because the LARGE CORPORATIONS own all that we see on TV, HEAR ON RADIO, Or READ IN THE NEWS PAPERS and MAG.,. This is true just check out what the BIG CORPORATION OWN.
IRALAND? Is that where retirement accounts come from?
The media needs something else to talk about. I'd give it to them: for the last eight years, the IRS has been invisible as far as the right and the rich are concerned. Audits are almost unknown.
While some of you may claim that this is stereotyping and thus illegitimate, I say that we know the correlation between staunch support of right wing causes and the refusal to pay taxes. It's part and parcel of the same ideology. As with Al Capone, it doesn't matter what you get them with, just that you get them: massive audits and maximum penalties. Membership in these groups should be a good indicator of possible infringements of the tax laws.
I find a simpler reason for Bush's 8 1/2 year honeymoon from the media: Money.
From the moment in 1999 when Bush laid out his massive tax-cut plan, with the vast majority of benefits going to the top 1% of earners - this includes everybody of any consequence in the media. I saw the coverage change overnight - with the media falling all over themselves to promote him.
He followed up with another round of tax-cuts, again weighted to the top 1%, as we were starting our second war, with Iraq. Capitol gains and interest tax-cuts rounded out the package of extra money flowing into the pockets of reporters, multimillion-dollar pundits, editors, directors, producers, columnists, etc.
What I saw in much of the distorted coverage of Bush over the years, was a desire to hold onto those tax breaks, no matter what - notice that every current interview of Obama admin officials or Democratic leadership in congress, hounds the interviewee on NOT eliminating the Bush tax-cuts for the top 1% - the 8-figure income ones are still pushing for making them permanent!
I'm not saying that the media isn't predominently RW - the only liberals with their own shows are MSNBC's Olbermann & Maddow. CNN became Fox's Mini-Me with the purging of their last liberal host, Aaron Brown. MSNBC has a mix of RWers - Scarborough, Contessa Brewer, Alexis Witt - centrists - Andrea Mitchell, David Shuster, Matthews - and the 2 lefties mentioned above. Fox is lurching even farther to the right - Hannity (sans Colmes), Glenn Beck (John Gibson, without the overbite) Greta the honorary Palin family member, and BillO going berzerk every night.
What I'm saying is that even what the DailyHowler calls "good guy pundits" are still subject to the lure of a few hundred thousand extra dollars in their net pay.
.
I first noticed it when the media hammered Jimmy Carter for the hostages in Iran.
Every day Night Line told us America Held Hostage. Carter was blamed for the failed attemp to rescue them too. THat when I first noticed something wrong as they pilleried Carter daily. Then Reagan suddenly was the "Teflon President" no matter what there was no criticism of anything. Then Clinton was hammered on a daily and endless basis about white Water which was nothing then a million ither small issues the Monica. This is not new. America has paid a heavy price for our duplicitous media...... I don't expect them to change but thinking patriots need to
face them down when they try to undermine our new president.