Newt to the RNC: Take Down That Ad

Wow. You know they’ve hit bottom when Newtie is telling them they’re incompetent and flailing away at nothing ( I wonder if the SCLM will get the hint there’ no there there?). I myself am enjoying their rope-a-dope shadow-boxing. Kinda funny watching them wear themselves out before Obama is even inaugurated.

The other day I mentioned that trhe more McCain embraces a reality based, effective government position now, the more dishonest his posture during the campaign is revealed to be therefore his rehabilitation is a self-defeating exercise. I haven’t thought carefully about whether the same logic would apply to Newt or not.
He may be many things but an stupid is not on the list.

I liked this piece in the LA Times recently about the party of Joe McCarthy:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-gabler30-2008nov30,0,635817.story

What I wouldn’t give for an edit function after posting.
.
sigh…..

Left unsaid: Newt is “saddened” because the RNC ad blows.

Note that Newt manages to insist that all taped communications regarding the Senate seat be made public, which would be Fitzgerald’s call, not Obama’s, and could well end up hurting the prosecution’s case.

I am taking Newt’s lecture with a large pinch of salt. Remember Rove: he was supposed to be out. Just back from Amman, Jordan where the shoe throwing incident has produced a tidy sum of cash for the reporter, and lots of tv stuff from around the Arab World. Looks like he is going to qualify for an Arab Nobel Prize for ???

That is so reasonable! It’s like Newt is the best of both parties. I’ve got a crazy, nutty idea. I know he’d never go for it, but Newt should run for President in 2012!

I agree with Newt, this is a reasonable argument and needs to be said. But something’s wrong…
.
Oh yeah, he helped the OSP circumvent our intelligence infrastructure and fabricate a case for invading Iraq. OK, now I feel better– why are we listening to him?

The RNC has afforded Newt Gingrich the chance sound classy and high minded. How low can you go?

Newt missed his true calling. Flimflam ad man. The wildly successful Contract with America is a case in point. He is much more sophisticated than most knuckle dragging Repubs. He offers kind words at the right moment, but watch that knife behind his back.

Seems to me that Newtie and McCain both calling out their party would give permission to all the journalists out there to make a story of the fact that so many repugs (like Karl Rove) are engaged in baseless negative, attack politics. Wouldn’t hurt to add that the much of the media is as well.
.
Of course, it also seemed to me that the Bush administration was making up their justification for a war in Iraq out of fairy dust as they went along as well but the media, in its wisdom, did not agree.

via Yglesias: Jason Linkins nails the press’ inane metacommentary on Blagojevic: “Reporters: Our Obsessive Blago Coverage A Problem For Obama.”

Is this the same Newt Gingrich that co-authored the ‘angry white male’ persona back in the early eighties?!?!?
.
Tell me it’s not! NO.
.
Tell it ain’t!
.
Puhleeeeeeeeeeze!

RNC — Don’t listen to Newt. He has been co-opted by the left wing conspiracy…keep doing what you’re doing…it will work in 2010…trust me.

Tell ‘em, Andy!

Newt Gingrich is launching grenades at his own people. Now that’s what you call poetic justice.

KT — no need to post the ad, though. Let the GOP pay for them to air. You got snookered.

“Clearly, we should insist that all taped communications regarding the Senate seat should be made public. However, that should be a matter of public policy, not an excuse for political attack.”
.
The only thing Newt has learned is that when you shut the government down it better be on principle and not because you had to eat the stale M&Ms from the back of Air Force One.
.
All Newt is doing is telling the GOP that they need to be more subtle and pretend that attacks on Obama are based on “public policy” and not naked partisan advantage.

GOP definition of subtle = train wreck.

This also reminds me of how McCain refused to go negative with the Rev. Wright stuff after it became clear that the negativity was backfiring on him. High principle, GOP-style.

Sorry Newtie, that ship has sailed.
.
This is your party. Deal with it.

No mater what it’s real purpose, this statement was a step in the right direction. However a more fitting new name for the GOP was in the second paragraph – the “destructive distraction” party.

Newt has had the realization that the rest of the GOP has not: If you want to stop digging a deeper hole than you are already in, it is advisable to put down the shovel.

dunedweller has found the WMDs. The “weapons of mass distraction.”

.
Karen was manipulated by the RNC to post and promote their obnoxious ad for free. Journos are particularly susceptible to manipulation by Republican PR flaks, even knowing and understanding the bias it introduces.
.
GOP flaks produce this cheap garbage and send it around to all the DC journos knowing full well that some of them will post it, so they get free coverage. Scherer, of course, posted and promoted virtually ALL of their stuff during the campaign, and Newtie finally manipulated Karen into promoting their new work of “art.” It’s to her credit that she only links to it, I guess. Thank goodness for small favors.
.
Watch, Mark Silva will do the same thing, so will the Page, a couple
of bloggers on Politico, all using Newt’s statement as a hook. Do they know their “audience” or what?

The Borgen Project has informative statistics on addressing global poverty.

$30 billion ends world hunger
$550 billion is the US Defense budget

This organization has the ability, resources, and policy-makers to suppress the threat of global poverty by enacting legislation here in the US, which is tied to the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals. Please support organizations such as The Borgen Project so that we may rid the world of poverty.

I am late here, was out hunting a giraffe.
.
Newt and Frank Luntz helped make the 90′s obnoxious. I am thinking Newt has some secret strategy to go for the Rick Warren fundies.

trifecta55:
.
Didja blast one?
.
Save me a couple of those nice neck steaks, will you?
.
And don’t let Sarah Palin anywhere near that puppy…

Read Digby. That is all.
.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/12/press-throwdown-by-digby-earlier-today.html

@James,LA – Is it lonely being so wise, like Frodo with the ring?

trifecta, it’s like falling through the looking glass, isn’t it. That they can speak like this without any awareness that it is insane speaks volumes. Atrios captured it pretty nicely on a different topic earlier today:
.
I don’t expect Cheney’s gang to ever care about the hell they unleashed in that country, but they were enabled by almost the entire population of Elite Washington. Even now simple inconvenient facts of that time are brushed aside in favor of the Official Narrative. The complete lack of repentance or honest accounting by our elites is a continuing reminder of just how corrupt and sick elite Washington is. I don’t know how they live with themselves. They’re obviously not like me or most of the people I know.

Newt’s real beef is the ad lacked The Words That Work.

trifecta in my next life I want to come back as the chairman of the FCC.

Just came back to see the response to Newt’s benevolent proclamation. I see serious cynicism here. Can you feel it Newt? You and your party have earned it, and it is fully deserved, chump.

This what the RNC does- AMPLIFY tertiary mini-scandals of the partisan variety and then they (and a willing MSM) play six degrees of separation and manufacture rumor. They do nothing else.

Gingrich isn’t a newt, he’s a chameleon! bah-da-duh! Or not.

trifecta55-Also read the Daily Howler and follow the links to Media Matters and others.
.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh121208.shtml

He|| coffee, I’d throw it all away in a minute to have a sense of humor like yours!
.
That was a great Digby link, trifecta. The DC media is not going to reform itself, it will destroy itself first. The Dems absolutely have to get better control of their message machine and start hitting these people back hard. Days like this, the hemorrhaging of MSM jobs and the demise of so many newspapers seem something like divine justice.
.
They continue to destroy the little credibility that they have remaining, and even knowing that, they do it anyway.

Did anyone else see the Candy Crowley interview of Bush where they are HOLDING HANDS as they walk? Very weird. It’s also a good opportunity for me to remind people that if Candy Crowley married David Corn she would be Candy Corn.

“…the Republican National Committee is engaged in the sort of negative, attack politics that the voters rejected in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles. ”

Translation: the RNC needs to find the sort of negative, attack politics that the voters will go for. In other words, show me the blowjob.

“Did anyone else see the Candy Crowley interview…”
.
I think we can safely say we are in shame on you territory.

I think we can safely say we are in shame on you territory.

Why does Bush and Candy Crowley’s love so intimidate you? I think you will find the answer … in your heart.

.
Here’s your “intellectual Republicans”:

MATTHEWS: You guys sold the war as a nuclear threat to the United States. A nuclear weapon was going to be delivered by a nuclear delivery device. It was going to take the weapon and drop it here. You sold every trick you could to get us into this war. Now you’re back pedaling. And I do find it astounding. The Vice President of the United States is —
.
GAFFNEY: How do you feel, Chris?
.
MATTHEWS: This is how I feel. Four thousand people are dead because of how you feel. And Frank, you’re wrong about this because you don’t even seem to care your facts were wrong.
.
GAFFNEY: Chris, there were —
.
MATTHEWS: You admit your facts were wrong and it doesn’t bother you.
.
GAFFNEY: May I state my position rather than you stating it? May I do that? My position is that it’s regrettable that any Americans died. It is regrettable that they had to die, but I believe they did have to die.

.
Source: Think Progress » Gaffney: 4,000 Americans Had To Die In Iraq
.
.
Video at the link. And still, the DC MSM takes these people seriously. What’s that all about?

What do you give a couple for their 8th anniversary? Candy’s “reporting” from Crawford during Florida was something else.
And she never ever mentioned the boils that he developed on his face. That, my sarcastic friend, is REAL love.

I checked CNN.com, but I couldn’t find video of the segment. Honest. They were walking down a corridor in the White House, hand in hand, the longing of The Love That Could Never Be radiating from them and shattering portraits hanging on the wall as they passed. Intense.

“MATTHEWS: This is how I feel. Four thousand people are dead because of how you feel. ”
.
4000? Oh I forgot we only count United Statians as people.

Here is the question I’d like to see asked: Cheney says we would have invaded even if we hadn’t believed there were WMD. Karl Rove says the opposite. Putting aside the underlying question, what does it say about the Administration that its two top advisers aren’t in agreement about the basic rationale for sending us to war? How is that defensible?

Hey ya’ll, at least it is a blessing that the media never injects itself into the news, always reporting the facts dispassionately. Thus the passive voice they always use when stories “happen.”
.
I’m sure they’ll spend plenty of time on this remarkable utterance from Rice (AP):
.
Q: But the cost in terms of lives and in terms of the money and the abuse of money – (inaudible) was money wasted, there was money that was siphoned off, corruption and that kind of thing, you’re —
.
RICE: Not of American money. Not American money. I don’t think that you will find that anybody is arguing that there was corruption in the American programs.

I was thinking that this might have slipped by today. Especially since the Swampland folks don’t seem too worried about icky torture.

.

Asked whether he still believes it was appropriate to use the waterboarding method on terrorism suspects, Cheney said: “I do.”

Is it only in politics that someone is taken seriously after their ideas have been completely totally disgraced?

Cheney’s voice is so wet. He creeps the stuffing out of me.

“Is it only in politics that someone is taken seriously after their ideas have been completely totally disgraced?”

Religion.

coffee –
.
“Defensible?” From “Big Lie” Rove or Vice President GoF***Yourself? Surely you jest.
.
I believe the appropriate adjective is “pathological.”

It must feel very strange for Newt to suddenly be a RINO.
_
What am I saying? He’s been pulling this for years. He gets more passes on this kind of thing than William Kristol. So now Rove is a journalist and Newt is an elder statesman.
_
Ick.

Did Cheney confess to war crimes?
Jonathan Turley seems to be, with Glen Greenwald, voices in the wilderness. Move along so we can all get along and start healing. Or heeling.
.
Now about Eric Holder’s crime with regard to Elian Gonzales -that’s something we should investigate.

Turley tore it up on Olbermann tonite. Just unequivocal. Yes. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney are, unquestionably, war criminals. Now what are we going to do about it?
.
He says it’s time for us citizens to stand up and do something.
.

Now about Eric Holder’s crime with regard to Elian Gonzales -that’s something we should investigate.

I’ve got $20 that sez at least two of the Swampland bloggers will be manipulated by the Republicans into posting on Eric Holder and Elian Gonzales. I predict Klein will write a thoughtful but derisive post, then Karen will do a couple of posts as well, at least one with a misleading, snarky headline. It goes without saying that Scherer will post the contents of the RNC blastfax about it.
.
Anyone on?

Newt can kiss my stanky old azz.

Go away, Mr. Stay Puft.

Broken clock, twice a day, etc.

James-my father always taught me “It’s not a bet if it’s a sure thing”.

Don’t have any food in your mouth when you read this. Calderone at Politico:
.
During today’s press conference, President-elect Baracj Obama brushed off a question from Chicago Tribune reporter John McCormick about the Blagojevich scandal, and what interaction any advisers had with the Illinois governor. "
.
I don’t want you to waste your question," Obama said.
.
McCormick asked another Blago-related question, and Obama said he wouldn’t confirm a report in the Tribune from this weekend. Obama also said that the U.S. attorney’s office asked his team to withhold an internal review until next week. After a few attempts, the reporter finally followed up by asking who had the better jump shot: Obama or incoming education secretary Arne Duncan?
.
The interaction with McCormick stood out from previous meetings with the press. And speaking about the exchange on MSNBC shortly after, NBC Washington bureau chief Mark Whitaker said that reporters have not been aggressive enough during Obama’s post-election pressers. "Our job is to hold him to account," Whitaker said, adding that he thinks "we’re going to have to get tougher."
.
Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter followed up: "We need the Sam Donaldsons of the world."

wvng
.
I was watching the exchange on MSNBC live when it happened and it was worse being able to actually see it. Mark Whitaker was acting like a straight beyatch because Obama put the reporter in place. The funny thing is if Obama discloses the details of his report and the USA Fitzgerald criticizes him for jeapardizing the case against Blago then Whitaker will be leading the charge with torch and pitchfork in hand to rake Obama over the coals for treasonous acts and he would probably accuse him of trying to help Blago get off. This is a classic dammed if he does dammed if he doesn’t situation for PEOTUS Obama. Me personally I thoroughly enjoyed the way he put that guy in check that asked the question.
.
Check this out

sgw, thanks for the link to your excellent new blog and the “less than Swamplandic polite” response to the media insanity. I concur Obama’s response was exactly right. Here is another exchange that beggars the imagination:
.
MITCHELL: How challenging is this for the incoming administration? A distraction, and they are trying to minimize it, but it’s certainly created a lot of noise.
.
MARIN: A distraction! It is a monumental distraction. A recent Pew study showed forget about the economy and forget about the Obama transition, this is the gripping drama that seems to be headlining the news. It absorbs huge pages of the New York Times as well as the Chicago papers. So this is the soap opera of the century.
.
.
Note the tres elegante passive voice. My, quite the thunderstorm passing by that I am dispassionately observing and reporting on without the least interaction. Are these people actually this stupid, or is this a role they so love to play they get caught up in the moment? When it’s a Democrat, of course, only with Democrats.
.
Can anyone here remember a single instance where the media obsessed so absurdly, so obsessively, so destructively over something that was self-evidently nothing when it concerned a Repug (other than Larry Craig in the bathroom, in which case it was about teh gay)?
.
btw, I noticed somebody (I forget who) bringing up the “W” typewriter key again yesterday, as if it were a true thing.

Unfounded slander! Stop acting like sniveling sour grapes babies and help unite this country! We’re in a recession, 2 wars, and a lot of people are scared. Stop trying to use everything to your political advantage. Disgusting!

wvng
.
The funny thing is that its the Republicans who always hold themselves out as uber religious and touting family values and character and integrity but the Media gives them a free pass despite the hypocrisy. Instead they focus on the unassuming Democrat and try to tear them apart with conjecture and innuendo. We just had a sitting Vice President admit to war crimes today on video but do we get a post about it here at Swampland? NAH lets talk about camelot and petty Democratic infighting. I swear I am close to just getting fitted for a tin foil hat and calling it a day because my faith in the media is just gone.
.
Oh and thanks for the shout out!

sgw, I share your despair. I expected this media insanity to begin again should a Dem win, whoever the winning Dem happened to be, but hoped against hope that it wouldn’t. The whole crew acts like a bunch of Margaret Carlsons, having so much fun tearing down a Dem cause it’s easy, even if it makes no sense at all. Instead of hard work like reporting on true things.
.
I don’t know who such people are, that are capable of such behavior. As atrios said earlier today (yes this is a repeat):
.
The complete lack of repentance or honest accounting by our elites is a continuing reminder of just how corrupt and sick elite Washington is. I don’t know how they live with themselves. They’re obviously not like me or most of the people I know.

No, see. They aren’t going to reform themselves. The right has learned how to manipulate the new cycle, and they do it very well. The Dems have not learned. They need to learn how to manipulate the news cycle to their advantage. The DC MSM are not going to reform. They make a good living doing what they do.
.
It isn’t their job to help the Dems. They are perfectly happy being manipulated by the right. The right makes it VERY uncomfortable for the MSM when they don’t go along with the program. So they DO go along individually, even at the expense of their profession. It’s classic game theory.
.
It’s up to media reformists and the Democrats to make it uncomfortable enough for these MSM journos that they can no longer play according to the Clinton Rules.
.
Read this again. Democratic Strategist. It’s the manipulation of the news cycle that the Republicans have figured out, and the Dems need to learn. I’ve linked to this excellent post several times before, so forgive me if you have already read it. I know many of you have.

I see again the tech weasels at Swampland have managed to confuse things with a multi-page (non-sequentially numbered) comments format, but they can’t give us back our Preview.
.
In Japan this level of performance would warrant seppuku.

[...] and RNC Ad Thanks to Karen Tumulty at Swampland for posting the report on Newt Gingrich’s letter.  I’m glad to see as least some Republicans recognizing the signs of the [...]

James, LA: Is it that the Dems
‘
a) haven’t figured it out because of a lack of comprehension, or some other inability;
‘
b) have figured it out, but can’t make it work, I’m guessing because of a lack of a concerted plan, ie. “herding cats”; or
‘
c) have figured it out, but aren’t cynical enough to apply it, ie. “turn themselves into Repugs”?

I was going to post about how astonishing it is that Newt came up with some good advice, but Donut hit it on the head with the broken clock thing.
.
Also, re: wvng’s post on stupid reporter questions, I’d love to see reporters that ask that crap get literally horsewhipped out of the room.

nice guy,
.
opinions vary. I think a combination. Not enough talented PR people. Not as cynical. Expect press people to act like professionals. Lack of attention to details. Don’t know how to play the game. All big big mistakes. It’s not a top-down organization, you know? Plus, the cable news networks, which set the news agenda, have larded themselves with rightwing operatives.
.

This is funny (not ha-ha funny):

“The interaction with McCormick stood out from previous meetings with the press. And speaking about the exchange on MSNBC shortly after, NBC Washington bureau chief Mark Whitaker said that reporters have not been aggressive enough during Obama’s post-election pressers.
.
“Our job is to hold him to account,” Whitaker said, adding that he thinks “we’re going to have to get tougher.”

.
All of a sudden, now, they have to hold people to “account.” Nothing about allowing the revisionist history or George Bush and Dick Cheney. Nope. no “holding to account” there, even now. For EIGHT YEARS it wasn’t their job to “hold” anyone in Washington “to account.” That was the voters’ job. Now, all of a sudden, after the voters did *their* job, these clowns think they have to “hold” people “to account.”
.
Is there any clearer, more obvious statement of their intentions than that? They intend to destroy the Obama presidency like they destroyed Clinton’s.

It’s disconcerting to be kicked back to page 1 after you submit your comment. I’m with Flown Over. @20, or is it @2.20. or is it @20-2.
.
I forgot the link above.
Michael Calderone’s Blog: NBC’s Whitaker on press corps: ‘We’re going to have to get tougher’ – Politico.com

.
I should have added the other half of the equation at my #16. Not only does the right make it VERY uncomfortable for reporters who don’t go along with the program.
.
The other half of that is that the right has figured out how to stroke the egos and comfort the insecurities that drive reporters. They help reporters do their job by sending them “fact sheets” with pre-written ledes, they helpfully send them videos and material for their stories, provide them with sources, usable quotes, phone numbers, references to “experts,” the whole bit. They know exactly what it takes for a reporter to do his/her job, and make it THEIR job to help. The Republicans have whole shops that do nothing but produce stuff for reporters to use on their jobs. And then they are in constant contact with the new editors and managing editors to lobby for the assignment of THEIR stories. They set up pressers that are larded with quotable material. They put their public speakers through rigorous training so they appear well on television. They make well-trained speakers available on literally every subject.
.
In short, they run circles around the Dems. The Dems don’t do any of that. And sure, you can rail and rend your garments about how journos ought to be doing their own jobs and acting like professionals. But, it is what it is. That’s the reality of DC journalism, and it is time that the Dems learned to get in the game.
.
I’m just describing reality here.

James, thanks for that description. I really don’t know what the answer is, because the differences between the parties are not cosmetic. As a friend once noted, Repugs are like miners and Dems are like farmers. Dems, by-in-large, are not willing to manipulate and harm the system with lies to enhance their power, repugs are.

Last night, Rachel asked a very good question: “Why is there no pushback against the revisionist history that is being pumped out of the White House right now?”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/vp/28269977#28269977
.
I would ask that question of NBC’s Whitaker and all the other clowns in the media who are going after Obama for, self-evidently, nothing right now. And if they failed to answer substantively, I would concur with Cliff and have them “get literally horsewhipped out of the room.”

The solution would be to publicly, and privately through emails, ask Whitaker that very question. Why is there no effort to “hold” Bush and Cheney “to account” and note that, in fact, Whitaker himself has failed to hold the Bush Administration “to account” for 8 years. And ask why he thinks, in view of that, he decided to start now..
.
The Dems don’t do that, and people like us don’t have the access to do it, especially for TV journos, who are the worst of all and the most arrogant and self-important of all. They are particularly inaccessible. And they *make* themselves inaccessible.
.
Here is an interesting trend study of how the press’ fortunate have been falling since the 1980′s. What they are doing to their credibility. But individually, they don’t care. Individually, it benefits them to be superficial, gossipt and trivia-obsessed. Because it’s hard work to be a good journo, and as I said, the Republican message machine punished that as well.
From Pew: Summary of Findings: Internet News Audience Highly Critical of News Organizations

Dam that was a lot of typos. Sorry. Oh, please Mistah Sheriff, please please bring back preview. I promise I’ll be good.

James LA : I have enjoyed the content of your posts on this thread. We can thank Michael Deaver and Roger Ailes for the seeds planted almost 30 years ago, that have sprouted into 21st century journalism.
.
News organizations among the 3 networks were not expected to turn a profit and were sancrosanct with respect to editorial content. No more. All has to do is watch “Network” and see how Paddy Chayefsky’s satire has become reality.
.
Degregulation of the broadcast industry, acquististion by multi- nationals (GE), cable, boorish entrepreneurs (Murdoch, Redstone, et al) and the internet all contributed to demise of quality broadcast journalism.
.
I laughed out loud at the “we need more Sam Donaldson’s” quote. The current culture wouldn’t let Sam be Sam if he was starting out today. He’d be “outside the mainstream.” And he voted for Goldwater in ’64!
.
Larry King would be gone in a New York minute, if he started asking tough questions and the ratings began to drop.
.
The only way to effectively impact MSM is through their wallets. As long as they can get advertisers to pay for this sewage, they’ll continue to pump it.
.
Which brings us back to this web ad. If the GOP want Time to link to it, perhap they should buy time/space to do so. Karen has talked about the dire straits Time is in with layoffs, etc., it’s kinda dumb to provide “free advertising.”

The funny thing isn’t that Whitaker said they are going to have to get tougher with Obama and hold him to account. The funny thing is he can’t possibly describe what they should be holding him to account for. They just REFUSE to acknowledge that according to all of the information they have ALREADY Barack Obama nor his staff did anything wrong. In point of fact, according to the public information we have which is the 78 page indictment everything points to the Obama folks having done everything right by declining to engage in pay for play. Like I said if this had been George Bush they would be lauding him for being a HERO for not playing the pay for play game. He would be hailed as a UBER REFORMER and they would be falling all over themselves to push back against any lefty librul bloggers who might insinuate anything other than that meme.
.
It all goes back to the tool that is Halperin aka Drudge lite taking the media to task for being in the tank. I guess now they are going to show how “tough” they really are by pursuing meaningless manufactured controversies with tireless zeal. I am not an evil man but I have to admit that now I almost stand up and cheer when I hear about how some of these media outfits are going belly up. You reap what you sow.

81. 53_3 Says:
.
Fix the numblys, High Sheriff!

SG: You are NOT an evil man? I’m shocked…;) IMHO these financial challenges to these media companies couldn’t be more appropriate. You’re right again SG.

All so true Andy. All so, so true.
.
But I’m looking for ways to actively counteract this stuff, right now. In some cases it is effective to appeal to a journo’s sense of fair play, as recommended in that Democratic Strategist link. But overall, I don’t think it’s effective.
.
Journos are under constant pressure to produce: Mag writers only once or twice a week, newspaper journos once or twice per day, wire reporters five, ten, thirty times a day. That’s reality. So it is inevitable that a lot of them accept the assistance that I described above.
.
The Dems have to match or exceed the message management of the right. And us media reformists have to hit back when journos sin. Sometimes hit back hard, but sometimes it works better to stroke the ego and soothe the troubled beast. But what I am getting at is the liberal side should stop pontificating about the debacle that is DC journalism, and start *doing* something. And the Dems need better PR people. Especially Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi; their media people are mediocre to poor, putting it kindly.
.

I have to admit that now I almost stand up and cheer when I hear about how some of these media outfits are going belly up It’s not the cable news idiots who are going belly up.
.
I think Obama should start his news conference today by saying that if any reporters asks a question about Blago they will be horsewhipped from the room and never called on again in this or the next lifetime. Just a suggestion.
.
btw, did you all notice that it was a NPR reporter who asked the Blago question during the energy/environment news conference? My, how far NPR has fallen.

wvng: I no longer support NPR financially. Hearing Cokie Roberts daughter anchor All things Considered was the last straw.

.
Here’s the thing about the Blago story. That is all that cable news talks about. It starts with Scarborough and on through the day. Newsrooms have cable news on all day long. And so they make their assignments based on what “people”, i.e., cable news, is talking about. Of course, cable news gets a lot of their stuff from Drudge. But it is an endless circle, cable news talks, news editors think that’s what people are talking about, so they assign the story to their journos, the journos do the storys, the cable news shows talk about those stories. Okay? See how that goes?
.
It’s a totally corrupt, closed echo system. But that is the reality with which we are faced. Rail and complain all you want about it, but for God’s sake, let’s DO something, too.
.

James LA: You’d expect to see more outrage with the Madoff scandal. Widows and orphans who lost their life savings in this scheme should make great copy.
.
Here’s a story from today’s Times on Walter Noel, who they say is “middleman in spotlight.” I think the story is pretty weak.
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/17/business/17hedge.html?hp

Andy: You’d expect to see more outrage with the Madoff scandal. Especially because he gave to so many Dem charities. Maybe they haven’t noticed yet?
.
James: It’s a totally corrupt, closed echo system. But that is the reality with which we are faced. Rail and complain all you want about it, but for God’s sake, let’s DO something, too. I’m all ears. Suggestions?

The Clinton Rules of Journalism return for Obama
.
The Rules, of course, stated that from the press’ perspective, anything goes. No mysterious allegation or offensive slight was out of bounds. For some reason those rules were packed away during the Bush years and are now in the process of being taken out of storage to cover president-elect Obama.
.
For proof, let’s look at Dana Milbank from the Washington Post, dutifully regurgitating the Beltway CW today…

Read on: Media Matters – The Clinton Rules of Journalism return for Obama
.
.
Milbank, of course, is the one who fabricated that Obama quote and then wrote a whole column about the fabricated quote. He’s a real tool. His book did really poorly too.

.
wv, I mainly have questions, not so much answers. But write or call these people on their stuff. I’ve had that work in many cases. Contact their editors. Their ombudspeople, if they aren’t tools. It doesn’t have to be nasty, if you are talking a well-intentioned journo, a friendly note can be effective. If you are talking a tool like Milbank, not so much.
.
Support good journalism. TPM, MADDOW, Karen, Joe Klein. Some of the folks at the bigs are fine journos. Find out who they are and support their stuff.
.
Like I said, I don’t have answers. Which is why I asked Karen to weigh in. I’d like to figure out how to break up that noxious scandal cycle. But a lot of it is up to the Dems. We can pressure THEM to get better media people.
.
All that, but I’m open for suggestions myself.
.

The MSM seems to have decided to start over with this new administration. But instead of deciding they are now going to really pursue matters of substance they’ve decided they’re not going to let Obama “get away with” any shenanigans – even if there aren’t any.
.
Howard Dean’s take on Newt, btw, is that he’s 14 yrs older than he was in 1994, and he’s changed. This is in fact possible. We underestimate politicians’ ability to mature over time, as most of the rest of us do.

James, perhaps a list of political journalists who are easily manipulated RW tools or, easier to compile, a list of those who are not tools would be helpful.
.
For example, KT does not appear to be, but feels she must not participate in criticism of journalists who are. Joe Klein is maybe not a tool anymore, but was once clearly a tool (see: FISA/Hoekstra).
.
btw, useful fact. If I right click on Hoekstra, which my dictionary does not recognize, a suggested replacement is jockstrap.

Kathy, I can’t be so charitable toward Newt as you and Howard Dean. Maybe Vermonters are kinder. Newt has his new personna as uber reasonable, then he sticks a shiv in the back.
.
I remember this at some point during the campaign, although I can’t remember the specifics. He came on the teevee with some more in sorrow than anger quotes against the repubs, then he said some really ugly things about Obama.

Kathy, so now he has the intellect of 8 year old?…sorry.
.
wvng and James LA: this is probably a pretty lame suggestion, but I am going to be very diligent about watching which companies sponsors certain program that lack fairness. If at all possible, I won’t use their products/services; wirte to them about their sponsorship and how they’ve lost me as a customer, and encourage friends and family members to do the same.
.
It will take time and effort, but maybe I can achieve incremental change.

kathy: Howard Dean’s take on Newt, btw, is that he’s 14 yrs older than he was in 1994, and he’s changed. This is in fact possible. We underestimate politicians’ ability to mature over time, as most of the rest of us do. Not on your life. Newt hasn’t changed – he’s changeable. He sees a political advantage for himself at the moment in appearing to be above partisan politics, so he takes it. When it behooves him to be utterly partisan that is what he will do.

Do you think this guy is ‘pourmecoffee’?
.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/16/coffee.madoff/index.html

Perhaps sgw would be willing to host an ongoing thread discussing media pushback at his new blog Smooth Like Remy.
.
Oh, and did you all know sgw has a new blog? Promote promote.

wv,
there are like four main groups of journos. There’s wire – they are pretty good. There’s regional — that’s a mixed bag. There is national print and you’ve got a lot of great journos AND abysmal journos there, and then you have TV journos. TV journos are the absolutely worst — you could make the argument that they really aren’t journos but preening, self-important entertainers and not be too far off the mark.
.
But take national print. Within that group, you have subgroups: national desk, foreign desk, justice, business, and political journos. Now there’s the major, major problem: the absolute corruption of the political journalists in Washington DC. So you can concentrate on THAT group and see which ones are the tools and who aren’t. But I can tell you, sometimes they are tools and sometimes not. Sometimes they just have better RNC sources than Dem sources. I’d say MOST of them are honest, hardworking journos. Just a few are outright tools. You can concentrate on the HHWJs and help them do their job better. And the Dems can do that, and should do that.
.
The TV journos, I have NO CLUE how to reform that subspecies. I’m looking for ways. The tragic thing is, most people get their news from TV sources, so not only are they particularly corrupt, and completely inaccessible to the likes of us, but they are the most influential when it comes to public opinion.
.

He sees a political advantage for himself at the moment in appearing to be above partisan politics…..

But you have to admit that the fact he’s twisting into a post-partisan reflects well upon the public mood even if it does nothing for him personally.

Now if the cable chatters could also figure out that they’re losing people as well…..

Ah but Paul, they are not losing people. Network news is losing people, but cable is holding steady, despite the rise in internet news. Where did I see that data yesterday? I’ll have to go find it.

It is worth noting that TIME selected Obama as Person of the Year, and managed not to obsess over Blago. Like a skilled point guard, Obama stayed focused, concentrating on the big issues confronting him and the American people.

wvng, andy, ivb – I don’t think this is Newt being above partisan politics – I think it’s smart partisan politics. I don’t think the RNC is doing itself any favors with this approach, anymore than they are with their discovery that dynastic politics are bad.

kathy, I was disagreeing with the “Newt has matured” observation from Dean. I think this is just the beginning of the RNC campaign against Obama.

As to the Person of the Year, the write ups of the runners-up make one wonder.

Stengel’s cover piece on Obama is wonderful. As glowing as it is, it is also accurate.
.
But crisis has a way of ushering even great events into the past. As Obama has moved with unprecedented speed to build an Administration that would bolster the confidence of a shaken world, his flash and dazzle have faded into the background. In the waning days of his extraordinary year and on the cusp of his presidency, what now seems most salient about Obama is the opposite of flashy, the antithesis of rhetoric: he gets things done. He is a man about his business — a Mr. Fix It going to Washington. That’s why he’s here and why he doesn’t care about the furniture. We’ve heard fine speechmakers before and read compelling personal narratives. We’ve observed candidates who somehow latch on to just the right issue at just the right moment. Obama was all these when he started his campaign: a talented speaker who had opposed the Iraq war and lived a biography that was all things to all people. But while events undermined those pillars of his candidacy, making Iraq seem less urgent and biography less relevant, Obama has kept on rising. He possesses a rare ability to read the imperatives and possibilities of each new moment and organize himself and others to anticipate change and translate it into opportunity.

Re forcing MSM to be more responsible: Calling-out offensive journos (letters to editors, advertisers, etc) and forwarding critical articles/blogs (some of the above links, for instance) will be effective. But we also have an opportunity to land a decisive blow: Prosecute_The_Bush_Administration.
.
Admittedly, there would be some personal satisfaction in this, but it’s far bigger than that. Putting these high-profile individuals on trial (Bush, Cheney, Feith, Yoo, Addington, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Rummy, Rice…) will not only force the citizenry to evaluate their actions, but to question the media. Many will conclude that MSM was not only complicit in these crimes (detainee abuse, falsifying intel) but an integral part of the criminal act. Whether by laziness, negligence or design, the media is an accomplice. Once people realize this, they will demand better reporting.

wvng
.
Thanks for the promotion, it is much appreciated.

James LA
.
Its a domino effect though because most of the people who own newspapers also own the cable news shows. So if one falls they all end up hurting. Thats maybe the only good thing about the unamerican consolidation of the media that has taken place under Bush.

KT here–

Think I need to clarify something here. WV writes: For example, KT does not appear to be, but feels she must not participate in criticism of journalists who are.

It’s not quite that simple. But since the media is so often a topic of discussion around here, I thought I should spell out my own approach to all this media business:

1. I am perfectly willing to talk about/defend/apologize for my own work, which you guys have often taken issue with. (SEE: bitter/cling, though I don’t want to open THAT can of worms again.)

2. Occasionally, if I see something that someone else has written which does not comport with what I have learned in my own reporting, I may write a post about that. (http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/07/30/obama_quote/)

3. There have also been occasions in which I have publicly criticized my employer–specifically, when they have made a decision that I believe affects my own ability to do my job. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F07EEDF103DF930A25754C0A9639C8B63) Personally, I think doing it in the New York Times took some guts, but you may disagree.

However, I am not a media critic. That is not my job. I also do not think it is appropriate for me to use this space, which my employer provides, to criticize my colleagues. Plus, I really like my colleagues, know how good they are and how hard they work, and therefore, am not the most unbiased person to comment.

Some of you have made it clear that you believe this last point makes me a lickspittle. I guess I’ll just have to live with that.

Does anyone else think it’s unsettling when Billy May, the Oxyclean (a lousy product, speaking from experience)TV pitchman is now hawking health insurance? I see the ads on MSNBC all the time.

There’s a metaphor for cable news in there somewhere.

kathy
.
Howard Dean ALSO said Newt wasn’t above some master manipulation AND an unnamed Republican Strategist told Sam Stein at huffpo that Newt only came out like that because the RNC leader has now annouced that he will run for reelection and Newt doesn’t like him and wants him out. Let me post the part of Newt’s letter that lets you know this was all just a ploy
.

Clearly, we should insist that all taped communications regarding the Senate seat should be made public.

.
Now who else has been demanding the wire tapped conversations be made public before Blago has even gone to trial? Its bullsh!t intended to snow people into thinking the guy has turned a new leaf. A month ago he was calling Obama a socialist and a lover of hate mongerers. Sorry, not buying.

KT here–

Oops. Looks like those links didn’t work when I put them in parentheses. Here they are:
.
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/07/30/obama_quote/
.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F07EEDF103DF930A25754C0A9639C8B63

KT, I, and I would hope most others, do not expect you to criticize your colleagues at TIME in this space. If I were you and disagreed strongly with something one of those colleagues said or wrote, I would speak to them in private about it. I would certainly not say anything in a blog post in a space, as you say, provided by your employer.
.
That said, I think we would be interested in your opinion of the general coverage so far of Obama, most particularly on the cable news stations – unless you are a better person than I and have already given up watching. I suppose it might be a slippery slope for you to keep your comments generalized, but I think that is where many of us are most concerned that the damage is being done.

KT
.
I have a question for you after reading the article you provided from the NYTimes. At what point does the public good out weigh the need for confidentiality? I ask this question because while I have a great deal of respect for the notion of what the media should do and the protections they should be afforded to be able to do it, the confidentiality protections have been abused many times in order to push a story from a particular interested party. In the legal system a man with his life on the line is protected from having his lawyer spill the beans on the actual facts of the case with the “lawyer/client priveledge” but even the potentially condemned man can have his right to confidentiality revoked if for instance he tells his lawyer about a crime that will be committed in the future or in an instance when the potentially condemned man is asking his lawyer to suborne purjury. Similar exceptions occur in the medical and psychiatry fields. So my question is why aren’t there exceptions spelled out in the journo hand book?
.
Also I agree that its unreasonable for you to call out your co-workers by name. But is it unreasonable to write say a general post about “some journalists” who are engaging in questionable practices or are writing intellectually dishonest articles? Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t but for me I just have a hard time understanding how it doesn’t frustrate a journalist who actually does it the right way to have their work posted right along side another journalist who is putting out a crappy product.

KT, Yes clearly being a media critic is not your job. That said, there are times when the media becomes the story. It’s probably impossible to cover the Blagojevich story without covering the media. Any discussion of Obama and Blagojevich would touch on speculation about the political fallout of the (tangential) connection between the two, which is directly related to the poor media coverage of this issue. Also, I share Bob Somerby’s frustration with journalists who criticize the media without naming names. Although I can’t think of anytime you’ve done that – actually that’s more Joe’s problem.
–
I appreciate that you’ve taken the time to outline your thinking on this issue of media criticism. Transparency is needed in both politics and the media after the past 8 years. And good point about not being the most unbiased observer. I remember having to mark fellow students in a seminar once, which was not easy.

I notice the comment counter is one off. Don’t know why that is. It’s a royal pain to go through two pages to get to the new comments. It is going to stifle participation, whatever the intent.
.
sg and ivb – I don’t think Dean’s comments are necessarily inconsistent with your views.
.
KT – I agree (as I did when it came up a couple of weeks ago) that there is no virtue in criticizing your colleagues in this venue. I wonder how many commenters who think you should be doing that post criticisms of their colleagues above the water coolers, or email them to a public forum. While it may seem that you have more “obligation” to be public, I can’t find a way to justify that view. I sure hope you would take colleagues to task with your employers if saw something unethical, and I’m confident you would.

Hi Karen. I do not think you are a lickspittle, but I am clearly frustrated that superior journalists like you don’t take your less able colleagues – generically as “some journalists” – to task when deserved. You are their peer, and you can have an impact where we cannot, as James,la outlined above. It is just enormously frustrating to watch the chattering classes seeks to baselessly harm and harass (and that is what it is) a new president who has more than enough actual problems on his plate. As your own, most excellent Mr. Stengel wrote today:
.
Obama’s competence fills him with a genuine self-confidence. "I’ve got a pretty healthy ego," he allows. That’s clear when he offers a checklist for voters to use in judging his performance two years from now. It’s quite an agenda. Listen: "Have we helped this economy recover from what is the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression? Have we instituted financial regulations and rules of the road that assure this kind of crisis doesn’t occur again? Have we created jobs that pay well and allow families to support themselves? Have we made significant progress on reducing the cost of health care and expanding coverage? Have we begun what will probably be a decade-long project to shift America to a new energy economy? Have we begun what may be an even longer project of revitalizing our public-school systems?"
.
There’s more: "Have we closed down Guantánamo in a responsible way, put a clear end to torture and restored a balance between the demands of our security and our Constitution? Have we rebuilt alliances around the world effectively? Have I drawn down U.S. troops out of Iraq, and have we strengthened our approach in Afghanistan — not just militarily but also diplomatically and in terms of development? And have we been able to reinvigorate international institutions to deal with transnational threats, like climate change, that we can’t solve on our own?"
.
And: "Outside of specific policy measures, two years from now, I want the American people to be able to say, ‘Government’s not perfect; there are some things Obama does that get on my nerves. But you know what? I feel like the government’s working for me. I feel like it’s accountable. I feel like it’s transparent. I feel that I am well informed about what government actions are being taken. I feel that this is a President and an Administration that admits when it makes mistakes and adapts itself to new information.’"
.
Can he really achieve all that? Plenty of voters will be happy if he aces only Item 1 on his list. But the essence of both Obama’s strength and his promise is that, according to a recent poll, a strong majority of Americans believe he will accomplish most of what he aims to do. For having the confidence to sketch that kind of future in this gloomy hour and for showing the competence that makes Americans hopeful that he will pull it off, Barack Obama is Time’s Person of the Year for 2008.

KT here–

Ivb: I guess I don’t take cable, and especially the talking head stuff, all that seriously. I don’t think anyone should. By the way, you can see me late this afternoon on MSNBC and tonight on CNN on “The Situation Room.”
.
Sgwhite: I think confidentiality is a guarantee that I would not violate. Period. If I find that a source is using that guarantee to push an agenda or to mislead me or otherwise abuse my trust, I stop talking to that source. That’s one reason why I try to have multiple sources, so I can check one against the other. But the fact is, occasionally you have to go with a single-source story, because there is only one person who has access to the information you need. I’m always more comfortable with a source I have dealt with before. These kinds of decisions are not a science, but rather the kind of thing that tests your judgment and your integrity. And if you fail that test, you will not have the respect you need to continue to do your job.
.
Rose: I LOVE the Blago story. LOVEITLOVEITLOVEIT. Can’t get enough. I also don’t think it is a problem for Obama. The transition folks want to answer these questions, and I think they will have an opportunity to do that in a time frame that suits Fitzgerald and does not prove to be a distraction for the new Administration. That said, I don’t fault anyone for continuing to ask them.

KT: appreciate your straightforward response. I know doctors and lawyers who have the same difficulty. They know something is wrong with a colleague but feel unable to talk about it. The Blago issue is frustrating because the journalists keep insisting on raising the question of Obama-Blago connections even after Fitzgerald asked Obama to hold off comments for a week. The press’ right to know comes up against the imperatives of an ongoing inquiry. Do members of your profession feel that their right to know trumps an ongoing criminal investigation and grand jury proceedings?

KT here–

Also, wvng, that story was by David Von Drehle, not Stengel.

Karen, we respect and appreciate you. The very thing that makes you sensitive to our criticism (and probably causes you consternation) makes you an excellent blogger: you care; you care about your own integrity and for that of your profession. We disagree with you at times, but that is good. Disagreement leads to consideration, to self-evaluation, to learning- if done right.
.
Your approach to journalism allows you to evolve as a journalist.

KT, I saw that after I posted. I read Stengel’s “why we chose Obama” at about the same time and messed up.
.
I agree with you that cable should not be taken seriously, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t have a serious impact on public opinion. Digby nailed the dynamic the other day:
.
The problem for Obama in this is the distraction, of course, and a gradual erosion of respect and the presumption of good faith among the American people, even if they approve of the job he’s doing. Even if they see through all the media braying, people eventually get tired of this stuff and the psychological response among a good many of them, in my observation, is to begin to blame the victim. Over time, it weakens the president and makes even his supporters tire of having to defend him. And in the long term, many people subconsciously internalize the derisive criticism and without even realizing it become reflexively hostile. It can ruin a presidency without the president’s approval numbers ever going much below 50%. I’ve seen it happen before my very eyes.
.

KT
.
I appreciate your response to my question. However my point wasn’t about you specifically but moreso about journalist’s in general. Say for instance this situation that has come out where there were some journalists who willingly engaged in cheerleading for the Bush administration at the Bush Administration’s request. Basically what I am saying is that what about in the worst case scenario? Everyone obviously does not adhere to your high standards on using unnamed or confidential sources. As a matter of fact for the people who are really paying attention it seems as if some unnamed sources may be fabrications used by some journalists to write a story that they just want to write to advance an agenda. There are also times when like with the Plame deal the people are engaged in illegal activity in order to leak information and push a political or ideological agenda. But it seems that the journo handbook says that you can NEVER out a source even if you subsequently find out they used you and or fed you incorrect information in an effort to further their own goals. i just don’t see how that makes any sense. But again I am just a lowly commentor,what do I know.

KT
.
By the way, those unserious news cable shows have convinced over half of America that Obama was involved in the Blago scandal according to a recent poll. Just because something SHOULDN’T be taken seriously doesnt mean it isn’t. Just ask the accountants for Limbaugh and Bill O

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
.
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
.
I just have to share this. Yesterday ALL DAY on MSNBC they kept saying that Hillary Clinton needed to tell her supporters to back off of Caroline Kennedy. So guess what, in the NY Daily News they report that she has in fact done so. What is the response on MSNBC?
.
Tamron Hall just asked a representative from NYDaily News if it was too little too late from Hillary.
.
I thought this was very appropriate since we are already talking about FAILs in the media.
.
PRICELESS

sgw #222, thanks for that stat. I saw that earlier and should have linked to it. Blago, corruption, Obama, scandal. Rinse, repeat. Again and again.
.
Benen has a nuanced discussion about the polling. Yesterday, a Rasmussen poll found that 45% of Americans believe it’s "likely" that Barack Obama or one of his top aides was "involved" in the Blagojevich scandal. Since the wording of the question was awkward, the results didn’t tell us much.

KT — I had question about why Congressman Xavier Becerra chose not to join the Obama adminstration. Is it as his press release inidcates or could there be other reasons?
.
he seems to be among the few who have chosen not to join the incoming adminstration. Can you provide any insight? Is he expecting Charlie Rangel to step aside at some point?
.
http://becerra.house.gov/HoR/CA31/News/Press+Releases/2008/121608+BECERRA+STATEMENT+ON+CONTINUING+TO+SERVE+IN+CONGRESS.htm
.
Thanks…one more thing: Journalism is an imperfect profession. I think the criticism and frustration some commenters express is a degradation of the professionalism of some of its practitioners.
The degradation seems to happen with editors, producers and reporters.
.
I have the benefit of life experience (I’m old) to compare and contrast my observations of journalism 35 years ago (when I first studied it as an undergrad) and what it has become today. IMHO a shell of its former self.
.
It’s the business model, and what I posted earlier today, as well as our education system. So thanks for allowing us to vent. I hope your fainting couch will not have to replaced in the near future.

KT here–

SG: Is that more or fewer than the percentage who think he is a muslim? and does that come entirely from cable? and who did the poll? what i’m also seeing in the polls is that he is enjoying enormous approve. like i said, barring some information we don’t know, i don’t think this is going to be a problem for him. i also think they are right in going for maximum disclosure. there were many people (mike mccurry among them) in the clinton white house who thought the independent counsel would never have happened, had the clintons turned over all their records to the washington post.
.
Bill Clinton himself wrote in his memoir (p 573-574 in my paperback copy): It was the worst presidential decision I ever made, wrong on the facts, wrong on the law, wrong on the politics, wrong for the presidency and the Constitution. … What I should have done is release the records, resist the prosecutor, give an extensive briefing to all the Democrats who wanted it,and ask for their support.

KT here–

I meant “approval” not “approve.” Preview would be my friend. If we had it.

Karen.
.
I completely understand your not wanting to talk critically in this space about your colleagues. I wouldn’t criticize my colleagues publicly either, were they doing egregious (or even not-so-egregious) stuff.
.
But I asked you more a more general question. How people could interrupt the news cycle that leads to a media frenzy. Insiders might have some thoughts about that. I’m at a loss in how people like me could act to interrupt that lethal, destructive news cycle that leads to these media frenzies. I’m serious about this.
.
If you don’t have any ideas on that, fine. But, again, no personal attack nor offense meant, journos at Time Mag jump in and participate in these frenzies and I’d like to know what the mechanism is that leads honest and hard-working journalists to jump in on a media frenzy. One person said it has a little to do with the news assignment desk and pressure to write about the same issue that everyone else is writing about. There may be others. For reference, here is a shortened version of that news cycle I’m referring to:
.

1. During the first 24-72 hours of a breaking story reporters and analysts are in a desperate life or death competition to inflate the importance of a “scandal” and make it as big as story as possible. (After all, nobody gets a Pulitzer or a raise for a story titled “XYZ scandal of limited importance”). Conversely, there is no penalty or downside cost to reporters and analysts for engaging in baseless speculation.
.
2. Once the “story” is established as “news”, dramatic statements by leading Republicans or simply growing media or internet discussion of the “story” become themselves officially more “News” – justifying another set of headlines and TV teasers saying “back in a moment with new information on this breaking story.”
.
3. After the “big news” phase has passed, there is no tradition in American journalism or other effective pressure on journalists that will lead them to produce follow-up stories that correct the false impressions generated during the initial frenzy. The media simply do not consider themselves obligated or responsible for producing news stories like this in the aftermath of a media feeding frenzy. Correcting a false impression is not a “big news” story like the original misleading version.

Democratic Strategist

This Rasmussen poll KT.
-
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/december_2008/45_suspect_obama_team_involved_in_blagojevich_scandal
-
Pretty damn sad. And completely the fault of the news media. It’s a crazy metacommentary, Obama is involved because we keep talking about whether he’s involved even though the facts say he isn’t involved. I weep for the future.

.
It was a Rasmussen poll:
Forty five percent (45%) of U.S. voters say it is likely President-elect Obama or one of his top campaign aides was involved in the unfolding Blagojevich scandal in Illinois, including 23% who say it is Very Likely.
Source: Media Matters – Was Rasmussen trying to be disingenuous?

KT here–

J,LA: Well, like I said, I think disclosure is always a good move. The Clinton White House learned that in the campaign finance scandals of 1996. They were handing out the damaging information faster than reporters could get to it. Mau-mauing the media is pretty inefficient as a strategy. The “media” today is too atomized for it to work: print, cable, internet, broadcast, right-wing, left-wing.
.
I remember, for instance, how everyone in America learned about the infamous incident involving Monica Lewinsky and a cigar. Every reputable publication had heard about it and decided not to use it. But by the next morning, it seemed that everyone in America knew about it. Why? If I recall correctly, it’s because Jay Leno made some reference to it.

KT here (again)–

Also, don’t forget the mistake John Kerry made on the Swift Boat ads. He knew they were wrong, and figured the mainstream media would reveal them to be. And in fact, it did. If I recall correctly, the NYT did a front page story, plus a double-truck inside, debunking it. But it didn’t matter. Because he had hesitated, the horse was out of the barn.

KT here–

I’ve gotta log off for a while. Keep talking, guys.

But what about the Bush Administration? They are the champions of non-disclosure, the most secretive administration in history. Yet they got away with, literally, war crimes without once having a media frenzy unleashed upon them. What is the difference there. Why does it work for the bushies and not anyone else?
.
What do you mean by “mau-mau”?

there were many people (mike mccurry among them) in the clinton white house who thought the independent counsel would never have happened, had the clintons turned over all their records to the washington post.
-
Maybe so.
-
But that’s not a defense of the media’s conduct. Esp. not now– when the prosecutor told Obama NOT to release the info!
-
Thanks for engaging– it is really appreciated.

there were many people (mike mccurry among them) in the clinton white house who thought the independent counsel would never have happened, had the clintons turned over all their records to the washington post.
.
Isn’t that saying that the Washington Post was working in concert with the right? I mean why should any President turn over all their records to the Washington Post? Seriously?
.

KT here–

J,LA: mau-mau in the Tom Wolfe sense.

Rasmussen was flawed. Benen talked about a better poll: the real question is how many Americans believe the president-elect and/or his team did something wrong/inappropriate. Today, Gallup released a more useful report.

Karen,
I still don’t get it. Tom Wolfe?
I know you have to get to work, but I’d really like to pick your brain about these issues. It would be helpful.
.

j,la said: But what about the Bush Administration? They are the champions of non-disclosure, the most secretive administration in history. Yet they got away with, literally, war crimes without once having a media frenzy unleashed upon them. What is the difference there. Why does it work for the bushies and not anyone else?
.
Will anyone in the media answer that question, if asked?

I just want to recap a few things for the folks here. I am going to post more substantially on my blog in a moment.

.
the indictment is made public and it states pretty unequivically that Blago thought Obama wasn’t going to pay to play and he was furious
.
USA Fitzgerald made it a point to say that Obama had not been found to have done anything wrong
.
The media disregards this and instead jumps on the “who talked to Blago” meme and ran with it.
.
The media pulls out a video of Axlerod saying Obama HAD talked to Blago to paint Obama as having lied about not having contact with him. Axlerod subsequently says he was mistaken but the media now implies he is lying too.
.
Obama agrees to release a report on ALL communications between his office and Blago’s office. The media paint this as NOT being transparent and a dodge
.
Obama comes out and say USA Fitzgerald not to release the info until a week. This is much too long for the media and they say he should say screw Fitzgerald a guy who last week they were painting as a hero and speak on it.
.
In the meantime on several talking head shows people like Scarborough are trying to make the case that what Blago did wasn’t even criminal because he never consumated the act. But wait wouldnt that also mean that even if Obama had engaged in the convo (which he didn’t) that he also didn’t do anything wrong? Of course not. No matter what Blago did or didn’t do, Obama is guilty until proven innocent.

Every time I ask that question of any journo, amnesia sets in. They always give answers pertaining to the Dems, never about the Repubs. And these are HHWJs not hacks. (honest, hard-working journos)
.
It is truly strange. They just. will. not. answer.

Never forget that Scarborough is a rightwing operative, and what gets talked about on his show sets the news agenda for the entire day.
.

Though, Scarborough gets his material from Drudge and Politico.

Rose: I LOVE the Blago story. LOVEITLOVEITLOVEIT. Can’t get enough.
–
It’s hilarious, so of course I feel the same way.
–
I also don’t think it is a problem for Obama. The transition folks want to answer these questions, and I think they will have an opportunity to do that in a time frame that suits Fitzgerald and does not prove to be a distraction for the new Administration. That said, I don’t fault anyone for continuing to ask them.
–
But there are only so many chances journalists have to ask Obama questions and – especially with the recent cutbacks – only so much column space. Why waste their opportunities on pointless questions? There is no way the Obama campaign is going to give substantive answers before the 22nd and alienate Fitzgerald. Also, the questions on Blogojevich are accompanied by a “why are they not answering our questions? What are they hiding?” narrative, which is inaccurate and unfair. We all know why they’re not giving detailed answers!
–
I know a lot of other people would go further than me and call for less media coverage of the scandal, but IMO it’s so entertaining that’s never going to happen. (True story: the afternoon the story broke I passed the TV and thought, “What is Mike Myers doing on the news?” In my mind that hair = Mike Myers.) I just don’t see why Blagojevich needs to dominate the coverage of the Obama transition.

rose88: I know a lot of other people would go further than me and call for less media coverage of the scandal, but IMO it’s so entertaining that’s never going to happen. (True story: the afternoon the story broke I passed the TV and thought, “What is Mike Myers doing on the news?” In my mind that hair = Mike Myers.) I just don’t see why Blagojevich needs to dominate the coverage of the Obama transition.
.
That is exactly the right point.
.
sgw, very nice and concise summary of events. I look forward to reading your more substantive at your new blog: Smooth Like Remy

It bears repeating from the Digby link: “(I)n the long term, many people subconsciously internalize the derisive criticism and without even realizing it become reflexively hostile.” (h/t wvng 11:21)
.
WRT the media, the “liberal-elite-media” theme has been destructive. I forwarded a Krugman NYT article to a friend of mine. He dismissed it as liberal-media-Bush/Repub-bashing unworthy of consideration — he wouldn’t read it because he was hostile to the source. He later forwarded me a Townhall article without considering their religious-right affiliation. It’s an odd dynamic where some consider only right-leaning cable news programs or blogs to be trustworthy and above a supposed liberal-media bias.
.
This ties into earlier comments of mine. If the Senate Armed Services report is discussed predominantly in “elite” publications (WAPO, NYT) and “liberal” blogs (Huff Po, Salon, Think Progress) and not on broadcast / cable news, which appears to be the case, it will be marginalized by those disinclined to believe. Similarly, if we do not shock-the-system by perusing criminal indictments of those who allowed detainee abuse and perpetrated false intelligence, we will not see the system improve.

re #34 James, Los Angeles Says:
Wednesday, December 17, 2008 at 12:05 pm

Refers to the Kenyan uprising back in the late ’50s against the colonizing British. All sorts of etymologies about the origin of the phrase “Mau Mau”, but the Kenyan fighters were noted for their ferocity in combat (or viciousness, depending on whether you were an oppressed native or an oppressing colonial or colonial supporter). Oh yeah, and apparently some truly horrendus punishments were meted out to enemies of the uprising (but since such things aren’t generally taught in US primary education system I only know vague bits and pieces

Hmmm; OT. A sign of insanity is to keep doing the same thing, and expecting a different outcome. I’m still trying to use formatting tokens, and I bet’cha dey still broke.

“However, I am not a media critic. That is not my job.”
.
Then you shouldn’t have done that interview w/ Jay Rosen, the one where you couldn’t come up w/ a viable answer as to why there are no liberal voices at Time? Somehow I think the answer to THAT question will tell us a lot about why there were no media frenzies around myriad Bush scandals while there is one for the Obama non-scandal. Again, KT’s admission that she fears for her paycheck and that keeping quiet is part of the bargain at Time is telling.
.
Dana Milbank says Obama’s treatment of the press is just like Bush’s:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/17/obamas-press-treatment-ju_n_151729.html

That said, I don’t fault anyone for continuing to ask them.
There’s a difference between continuing to ask the questions and going on the air to exclaim that the refusal to answer them represents anything but cooperation with the Prosecutor. It’s interesting that you bring up the Plame controversy because it represents another instance where the Press’s self importance trumped Fitzgerald’s desire to proceed systematically in the direction of justice.

Note to that the degree of breathlessness over the possibility of Obama’s involvment with Blago is inversely proportional to the degree of credibilty on any topic in general. We’re going to remember who the hacks are.

KT here:

Cincy writes: Then you shouldn’t have done that interview w/ Jay Rosen,
.
I did that interview because I was invited to by the moderator, Jay Ackroyd, a frequent commenter who has added a lot to this blog. It seemed the least I could do in return. If you fault me for that, well…I don’t actually know what to say.

KT, it’s just that that whole thing was about media criticism, favors I get, but you can’t say ‘I don’t do media criticism’ at the same time. I get the feeling there are things you’d like to say but can’t, and that just makes me want to push more. Sorry if that bums you out.
.
Again I have to ask, if we find ourselves on the brink of collapse, what good was the fourth estate in the first place?

KT here–

Cincy: I will tell you exactly what I told the Jays: I do not do the hiring at Time Magazine, so I do not know the answer to that question. Would you like me to make up an answer? This is not a question of “media criticism.” They asked me a question; I told them I did not know the answer. If I did, I would have told them. I did discuss how I do my own job, and what changes I have seen in the industry from my perspective as a working journalist.

PaulD: “We’re going to remember who the hacks are.”
.
Yes, we are. The real question is what can we do about them. As nearly as I can tell, there is absolutely no consequence paid for being a hack, certainly not a RW hack. And if you are photogenic enough, and pushy enough, you can land a spot on the teevee.
.
Like DG on MTP, king of false “balance.” I caught a few moments of Gregory interviewing Romney and, I believe, Governor Granholm (MI) about the auto bailout. Romney was throwing out the $73/hour that has been so solidly disproved, Granholm pushed back saying it wasn’t true, and Gregory quickly (one might even say abruptly) pulled a “let’s move along to a new subject” by saying he was sure people would continue to debate the numbers. The numbers are objectively knowable, subject to debate only between people stating what they are, and people who are lying.
.
Anyone watching Gregory’s performance on Race to the WH would know that this was his idea of journalism. I was in no way surprised to see him do it. And he is now host of MTP.
.
On the impact of cable news blather, at 12:50 pintortwo repeated a digby snippet I posted that is worth posting again: “(I)n the long term, many people subconsciously internalize the derisive criticism and without even realizing it become reflexively hostile.” What the polls show now about Obama/Blago is only a snapshot of the effect of their corrosive coverage.

No I don’t want you to make up an answer, but you are an intelligent woman w/ a keen sense of observation. I have a hard time believing you have no opinion. We go round and round w/ questions about the media and what many of us perceive as a double standard here in the comments…do you believe us to be driven by bitter partisanship? Or do you believe there is at least a grain of truth to what we’re saying regarding the media and it’s reliance on right wing memes?

Cincy, in KT’s defence, doing an interview with a media critic is not the same thing as being a media critic. I would have thought that was obvious.

Oh oh, cincy and KT fighting again.
.
To lighten the mood a bit here is a new blog:
http://brokershandsontheirfacesblog.tumblr.com/

doing an interview with a media critic is not the same thing as being a media critic. True. Question, are there any msm media critics who would do or have done a substantive comparison between the two week old frenzy over the Obama/Blago non story, and the lack of any frenzy over 8 years of Bush malfeasance? Certainly not prominent “media critic” voices like Kurtz and Lil Debbie.

billiecat, doing an interview w/ a media critic about the media and criticism of it IS the same thing as being a media critic, at least temporarily. I would have thought that was obvious.

Lightening:
http://www.banthis.com/pictures/1433/

KT here–

Jay Ackroyd, where ARE you? We need an objective third party about the interview that I did with you.

Cincy, by that logic a doctor interviewed by a reporter is “temporarily” a reporter. That’s utter nonsense.
.
A reporter being interviewed by a media critic is still a reporter, not a media critic. You can criticize their answers for many reasons, but it is illogical to do so on the basis that they are “media critics.” They aren’t, any more than a cadaver being dissected is the anatomist.

I just re-read that. What a weird choice for a metaphor. KT, I am not comparing you to a corpse! Sorry if it seems that way.

Come on KT, the ‘I don’t do the hiring at Time’ has a total cop out quality to it. I don’t think Jay liked that answer any more than I did.
.
This though is very funny:
“The paradox of this scene was that the Obama campaign’s communications strategy was predicated in part on an aggressive indifference to this insider set. Staff members were encouraged to ignore new Web sites like The Page, written by Time’s Mark Halperin, and Politico, both of which had gained instant cachet among the Washington smarty-pants set. “If Politico and Halperin say we’re winning, we’re losing,” Obama’s campaign manager, David Plouffe, would repeat mantralike around headquarters. He said his least favorite words in the English language were, “I saw someone on cable say this. . . .”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/magazine/21Gibbs-t.html?_r=1

This quibbling about the interview is not helpful. Actually, it is a distraction from the serious questions I asked. I appreciate that they are uncomfortable for Karen to discuss publicly. She ignores me and my question, even though I *thought* I was polite and non-combative.
.
“As nearly as I can tell, there is absolutely no consequence paid for being a hack, certainly not a RW hack. And if you are photogenic enough, and pushy enough, you can land a spot on the teevee.”
.
That is one of the points made in the essay at Democratic Strtegist. There are NO consequences for being wrong in DC media. NONE. That needs to change. And they aren’t going to change if they can help it. It’s up to us. Now, how do we do it?

“Cincy, by that logic a doctor interviewed by a reporter is “temporarily” a reporter. That’s utter nonsense.”
.
Apples and oranges. If a doctor was conducting an interview then yes, he is temporarily a reporter. If that doctor is participating in a discussion about the perceived weakness of the health care system, should he beg off and say ‘sorry, I’m not a health care critic’? If KT doesn’t want to wade into the maelstrom of media criticism then she should have told Jay ‘no’. She didn’t…and here we are!
.
KT, unlike billiecat, I think you look fantastic.

KAREN: “J,LA: Well, like I said, I think disclosure is always a good move. The Clinton White House learned that in the campaign finance scandals of 1996. They were handing out the damaging information faster than reporters could get to it. Mau-mauing the media is pretty inefficient as a strategy. The “media” today is too atomized for it to work: print, cable, internet, broadcast, right-wing, left-wing.
.
(snip)
.
Also, don’t forget the mistake John Kerry made on the Swift Boat ads. He knew they were wrong, and figured the mainstream media would reveal them to be. And in fact, it did. If I recall correctly, the NYT did a front page story, plus a double-truck inside, debunking it. But it didn’t matter. Because he had hesitated, the horse was out of the barn.”
.
.

JAMES: “But what about the Bush Administration? They are the champions of non-disclosure, the most secretive administration in history. Yet they got away with, literally, war crimes without once having a media frenzy unleashed upon them. What is the difference there. Why does it work for the bushies and not anyone else?”
.
.
Serious, substantive question. It isn’t rhetorical. I am seeking information and insight. If you don’t know, you don’t know.
.

“she ignores me and my question, even though I *thought* I was polite and non-combative.”
.
I can attest to the fact that the whole ‘draw more flies w/ sugar than vinegar’ is total bullsh!t.
.
‘It was a source of great amusement to Obama’s staff that people thought they could use conventional schmoozing practices to win favor with them. “In part because we were in Chicago and in part because of our approach, we did not do ‘cocktail party’ interviews,”’
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/magazine/21Gibbs-t.html?_r=2

KT here–

J,LA: First, I would disagree that they haven’t have a media frenzy unleashed on them. What exactly is your definition of a media frenzy? Have you looked at Bush’s approval ratings lately? Have you read any of the books that have been written about the Bush Administration?

KT here–

BTW, wordpress appears to be down. I had tried to post something about curtis gans’ latest report about voter turnout, and it wouldn’t accept my password. either there’s a problem with wordpress, or i’ve been laid off.

Cincy, it’s not. That my formulation sounds ridiculous just points up the problem with your formulation.
.
A reporter being interviewed by a media critic is a reporter, not a media critic. Now, you criticise that reporter’s answers as evasive, incomplete or whatever, but it’s illogical to say that the responses should be better coming from a media critic, because she’s still not a media critic. Your underlying critique is perfectly valid, you only undermine it with you illogical premise. And if reporters who don’t want to be considered media critics have to start refusing to talk to media critics, the media critics will be navel gazing even more than they are now. I doubt the two Jays want that.
.
And that said, JLA is right. It’s a distraction. And like him I’d like to hear from KT if there are consequences for hackery among the media types. My belief is there are some, it’s just the pillorization of the hacks is not as swift, sure and publicised as we’d like. For an example that did escape outside the bubble, though, just google “Miller, Judith.” Are there other, less-public shunninngs we outsiders are not aware of, KT?

JAMES: How people could interrupt the news cycle that leads to a media frenzy. Insiders might have some thoughts about that. I’m at a loss in how people like me could act to interrupt that lethal, destructive news cycle that leads to these media frenzies. I’m serious about this.
//
1. During the first 24-72 hours of a breaking story reporters and analysts are in a desperate life or death competition to inflate the importance of a “scandal” and make it as big as story as possible. (After all, nobody gets a Pulitzer or a raise for a story titled “XYZ scandal of limited importance”). Conversely, there is no penalty or downside cost to reporters and analysts for engaging in baseless speculation.
.
2. Once the “story” is established as “news”, dramatic statements by leading Republicans or simply growing media or internet discussion of the “story” become themselves officially more “News” – justifying another set of headlines and TV teasers saying “back in a moment with new information on this breaking story.”
.
3. After the “big news” phase has passed, there is no tradition in American journalism or other effective pressure on journalists that will lead them to produce follow-up stories that correct the false impressions generated during the initial frenzy. The media simply do not consider themselves obligated or responsible for producing news stories like this in the aftermath of a media feeding frenzy. Correcting a false impression is not a “big news” story like the original misleading version.
//
.
You came up with disclosure as one method, Karen. Where does the disclosure occur to break up the frenzy? What if there is nothing to disclose? What if there cannot be disclosure for legitimate reasons? Where does one interrupt this cycle?

I think media frenzy would be something along the lines of Lewinsky-gate. Let me bottom line it for you billiecat: if you don’t want to indulge in media criticism, don’t do interviews w/ media critics about the media. KT’s ‘I’m not a media critic’ answer is not a clarification of KT’s role at Time, it is, IMO, a cop out. It’s a way to end the line of questioning.

Karen, those were not media frenzies. I am talking about the 24-hour cable news, talking head, jowl-quivering huge headline team coverage frenzies. I cannot recall a single frenzy like that with the bushies, not even with Abu Ghraib. Please refresh my memory. The kind that results in false spreading of information that is impossible to correct. There was truth in those books, and they didn’t result in media pile-ons.

James, it gets frustratingly circular, no? So, a question for the excellent KT who is not a media critic but looks fantastic. Starting with a statement – I believe virtually everyone who comments here (with texteeual exceptions) cares deeply about quality journalism and wants to see, and actively supports, accurate reporting that does not push false stories or employ false balance. Is there any way you can suggest that we can have a real impact on the lesser practitioners of your craft, so that a professional price is paid for unprofessional conduct? At the moment, the only people paying a price are the public.

Please note, Karen, I am not trying to argue. I feel rushed because you drop in and out and I am seriously interested in your perspective.

…I don’t even really remember a frenzy as big as the current Blogo inspired one during the Bush years. Maybe Scooter Libby, but that was all he said she said, and you had Andrea Mitchell running interference for Scooter and I never saw the chomping at the bit fervency that we’re seeing now.

Can we agree that the MSM has journalists in the true sense of the word (a fast diminishing number), pontificators who cover up their ignorance by reverting to Republican talkings points, the leeches who feed off the journalists and reflect their inability to be reflective, and the the strategists who have given strategy a bad name.

Karen, you belong to a ever declining number of pros who are surrounded by those who just want to get on tv and speak in soundbites. I look forward to your appearance on Situation Room this evening. At least you speak in complete sentences.

There are two reasons you folks are talking past each other. The first is that, as I said earlier, the dichotomy being argued isn’t between left and right. It’s between serious and unserious. Joe Klein may have been an Obama supporter but since he still sees the US military as having a rightful place rearranging the Capitals of countries halfway across the world, he’s still regarded as ‘serious’ and therefore gets to play.

This is why the commenters here can see the deck stacked against them while KT sees things quite differently. They’re both right; they’re just not discussing the same issues.

The best way to see how things split up is to ask people how they feel about criminal prosecution for the people who authorized torture. Nothing will seperate the Villagers from the DFH’s faster or more reliably.

There haven’t been any Bush frenzies. A knowledgeable friend in the business defined the Clinton Rules thus:
.
“I would say that, to me, the Clinton Rules, is the habit in the media to pursue and often magnify allegations of wrongdoing no matter how disproven, or incredible, in ways that set aside the tenets of the media as a profession and in ways that have no equivalent in media coverage of Republicans.”
.
Scooter Libby, see there was media interest, but it was controlled. It didn’t dominate the talk show circuit. It didn’t result in multiple day, huge headlines, 20-minutes pieces on network news. It was tightly managed by the bushies. It was contained for literally years. And that was the very model of non-disclosure being a successful strategy.
.
That definition of Clinton Rules is what we are witnessing with the Obama administration, in its infancy. It’s going to get worse, much much worse, if we can’t find a way to fix this. I’m dead serious.
.

P.D.: Amen to that. Why haven’t we had a post on the whistleblower (see Newsweek) and eavesdropping on Americans. Most topic here are pretty ho hum. What about torture and what to do to those who approved such activity?

“The first is that, as I said earlier, the dichotomy being argued isn’t between left and right….Klein may have been an Obama supporter but since he still sees the US military as having a rightful place rearranging the Capitals of countries halfway across the world, he’s still regarded as ‘serious’ and therefore gets to play”
.
But the opinion that the US military SHOULDN’T rearrange the capitals of the world is a staple of the left no? ‘Serious’ it seems to me, as far as the Beltway is concerned, is a willingness to listen to and internalize right wing memes.
.
An indictment of the media, heard on CNN recently coming out of the mouth of Wolf Blitzer:
“I want you to listen to what Bill Kristol wrote recently…”. The prosecution rests.

jamers: Karen, those were not media frenzies. Absolutely true. I have found it remarkable, and refreshing, that the public eventually found its way to the truth about the Bush administration in spite a media that was – and actually remains – unduly protective (see Legacy Tour/Bush). Up until very very recently, the media pretty broadly refused to put Bush’s approval ratings into any meaningful historical context (still waitin for the Broder bounce) – that context being that the American people really didn’t like him, and hadn’t liked him for an astonishingly long time. On the other hand, it is quite easy to find articles talking about how unpopular the actually quite popular Bill Clinton was.
.
There was something of a media frenzy around Katrina that came to harm Bush in time. But that was less of a frenzy than reporting in a state of disbelief that the administration was so utterly incompetent. It was based on a for-real, serious, national problem. It was not a frenzy that resulted in spreading of false information that is impossible to correct. Heck, it’s been hard enough to get substantive, persistent reporting and chattering about the awful true things about Bush.

Drat. Karen escaped again. There’s a new thread.

cincy, LOL.
.
wv, you are right about Katrina, except that the reporting was truthful, indeed the most truthful reporting of the entire Bush administration.
.
The rest of the reporting of the Bush Administration has been kid gloves all the time. And the point made to me was that it wasn’t their job to “hold Bush accountable” but to produce news. Yet now you have the senior reporter for NBC telling us that:
.
“Our job is to hold him to account,” Whitaker said, adding that he thinks “we’re going to have to get tougher.”"
.
Well, if it wasn’t their job with bush, why is it their job now? Answer, apparently, Clinton Rules.
Michael Calderone’s Blog: NBC’s Whitaker on press corps: ‘We’re going to have to get tougher’ – Politico.com

@ James LA: “But what about the Bush Administration? They are the champions of non-disclosure, the most secretive administration in history. Yet they got away with, literally, war crimes without once having a media frenzy unleashed upon them. What is the difference there. Why does it work for the bushies and not anyone else?”
.
.
Sumner Redstone (majority owner of Viacom and CBS), courtesy of Time: “(I)t happens that I vote for Viacom. Viacom is my life, and I do believe that a Republican Administration is better for media companies than a Democratic one.”

Good quote from Redstone. Now look into Kaplan Inc and the Washington Post for a real life example of this, Kaplan is owned by the WaPo.

“. . .the dichotomy being argued isn’t between left and right. It’s between serious and unserious.”
.
That’s true in another way, Paul Dirks. Part of the reason KT (and kathy, and lots of other people, including myself) LOVELOVELOVE Blagogate is because it is entertainment. F-bombs left and right, comical warning on tapped lines to be careful about what’s said because someone might be listening, bad hair . . . throw in a well-greased hooker and you’d have an HBO miniseries. The fact that, to anyone who actually is paying attention, there is no evidence that this criminal enterprise stretched over to Hyde Park or was any more threatening than the bozos on America’s Dumbest Criminals makes it easy on the conscience – and a lot more fun – to report and read about Tony Blagano than, say, the economytortureiraqiranafghanistan or any of the parade of horribles Obama recited in his Man of the Year interview. Bush and Cheney are old news – they can’t even get themselves arrested these days (curse them!). And it’s natural for even good reporters to have a little fun and ask questions of Obama about Blago, even if there’s not a lot of “there” there.
.
Who’s contemptible are the commentators who try to gin up controversy for entertainment’s sake whilst pretending to be looking out for the public. I’m sure the gladiator bosses pretended they were doing good for Senatus Populusque Romanus, too. But unless a reporter actually has evidence that the Obama transition is actually hiding something, please, kindly STFU about “not being transparent enough” and “convenient timetables”. Times are too serious for the serious villagers to be so . . . unserious.

james, agreed about Katrina and kid gloves. Interesting that KT thinks having a number of critical books written about Bush, mostly by outsiders (exceptions like Ricks duly noted) and mostly broadly ignored by the media, is in some way the same as a 24/7 cable feeding frenzy over inconsequential or substance less minutia. It is important to note that we experience all this very differently than KT does – outside versus inside. Perhaps people in her circles talked about Greenwald books a lot, but that didn’t translate into media coverage.

Why are there no new posts today? What, slow news day? Maybe that’s why people are getting punchy on this 4th page of comments and digressions.

doing an interview w/ a media critic about the media and criticism of it IS the same thing as being a media critic, at least temporarily.
–
Cincinnatus, you’re entering the realm of scholastic reasoning there. Next you’ll be saying that Cheney is not a member of the executive branch.

billie, I’ve had it with reporters having a little fun at our expense. I stopped way back in 2000. From Somerby:
.
What is the state of the mainstream press corps? In the aftermath of the first Bush-Gore debate, Margaret Carlson painted a stunning portrait of an uncaring, millionaire press corps. Why were pundits stressing minor factual errors by Gore and ignoring massive policy blunders by Bush? Appearing on Imus, Carlson revealed the soul of the corps, and no, we’re not making this up:
.
CARLSON (10/10/00): Gore’s fabrications may be inconsequential—I mean, they’re about his life. Bush’s fabrications are about our life, and what he’s going to do. Bush’s should matter more but they don’t, because Gore’s we can disprove right here and now…You can actually disprove some of what Bush is saying if you really get in the weeds and get out your calculator or you look at his record in Texas. But it’s really easy, and it’s fun, to disprove Gore.
.
Those emphases were strictly by Carlson. It’s “fun” to disprove Gore’s errors, she said—and it’s “easier” than trying to work with Bush’s more significant blunders. Carlson took her troubling presentation through one more weird iteration:
.
CARLSON: I actually happen to know people who need government and so they would care more about the programs, and less about the things we kind of make fun of…But as sport, and as our enterprise, Gore coming up with another whopper is greatly entertaining to us. And we can disprove it in a way we can’t disprove these other things.
.

.
And, even more tragically, none of them were “whoppers.” Not a one.
.
There are days when I sympathize with the hemorrhaging job situation in the MSM, and other days when I celebrate it. Lately, it’s been more of the latter than the former.
.

wvng, I’m not disagreeing with you. But “fun” sells papers like lipstick sells pigs. So “fun’s” what we get, until the circuses become so much of a distraction that no one notices that the barbarians got past the gate and there’s no more fun to be had.
.
Apparently that already happened in 2000 for you. I guess it did for me, too, but I still like a good distraction from the stupid. Plus, it’s only 33 days before Bush and Cheney belong to history – and history is PISSED.

Hey! I’m the Roman reference guy!

Lord, you folks must be young.
.
As a point of reference, “Mau-mauing” has little to do with the Kenyan uprising and everything, as KT said, with Tom Wolfe’s 1970ish book, “Radical Chic and Mau-Mauing the Flak Catcher.”
.
It was drawn from Wolfe’s magazine pieces and added two phrases to the language of the times: radical chic — the lionizing of radical groups by the elite literati in Manhattan and ‘mau-mauing’ to describe how minority groups in San Francisco outfoxed social welfare counselors, the ‘flak-catchers.’ The later term caught on for any corporate spokesman, and was shortened to ‘flak.’
.
OK. Make that three phrases Wolfe added to the the vocabulary.

. Interesting that KT thinks having a number of critical books written about Bush,
.
This supports her blaming management for whom they hire (and what stories get written). It’s not James Risen’s fault that Bill Keller made a decision to spike the illegal domestic spying program.

.
dave,
sorry if I seem dense, but I still don’t get it in reference to Karen’s statement.
.

Well, davemc321, I guess I’m really old because the first reference I recall to Mau Mau was in Robert Ruark’s novels Something of Value and Uhuru. Wolfe used the phrase, but so did others at the time.
.
*As a result of the events in Kenya, the verb “to mau mau” meaning “to menace through intimidating tactics; to intimidate, harass; to terrorize,” entered English usage, especially in a political and/or racial context. One example is Tom Wolfe’s 1970 book Radical Chic & Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers. Another example, in the second episode of Law & Order (“Subterranean Homeboy Blues”), a detective uses the verb in this way: “If the lady popped you because you were mau-mauing her…”
*Depicted in the short film The Oath, which used all Kenyan and Kenyan-based actors, some of whom are modern day descendants of the Mau Mau.
*The 1955 novels Something of Value and Uhuru by Robert Ruark are written from the perspective of Dedan Kimathi and his friend Peter. Something of Value was made into a 1957 movie.
*The Mau Mau uprising is also highlighted in the movie “Safari” released in 1956 and starring Victor Mature and Janet Leigh. Mature is the great white hunter bent on revenge against the Mau Maus, and Leigh the love interest he takes on Safari. The movie was filmed in Kenya and directed by future-to-be James Bond film director Terence Young.
*A gang in late 1950s New York City known for their violent attacks named themselves the Mau Maus, apparently after the fearsome reputation of the Kenyan rebels. Evangelist Nicky Cruz was a member of this gang when he renounced his violent ways and converted to Christianity. The 1970 movie, The Cross and the Switchblade, starring Erik Estrada as Nicky Cruz, depicts these events.
The Mau Maus were also a fictitious political hip-hop group in the 2000 Spike Lee film Bamboozled.
*The black radical hip-hop group The Coup reference the Mau Mau Revolt in many of their songs, such as “Kill My Landlord” and “Dig It”
*The Mau Mau Uprising is referenced by several flashbacks in the Magnum, P.I. episode “Black on White”.
.
Among others — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau#In_popular_culture

There are days when I sympathize with the hemorrhaging job situation in the MSM, and other days when I celebrate it. Lately, it’s been more of the latter than the former.

I assure you, James, LA, that the vast majority of the journalists leaving theirs jobs involuntarily are not the ones who cover DC politics, would rather address scandal then substantive issues, pontificate on cable news and share glib opinions about issues they don’t know that much about.
.
Cable news, talk radio and the web have fueled the drive toward more opinion and less fact. And it’s those who will thrive. People tune in to get pissed off and argue. While the reporters and editors – those who slogged through details of school boards meetings, legislatures and social service agencies and dug up facts on the inequities in our towns — are a dying breed.
.
When you wish for the demise of the media, be careful what you ask for. It’s coming.

I should have been clearer, ivb. Of course the phrases roots are from the Kenyan troubles. I remember reading as a child news reports of the Mau-Mau attacks.
.
It’s not that Wolfe’s use was the first reference. It’s the one, however, that caught on in popular use in the ’70s. It referenced a confrontational style that pitted the art of the bluff and hip black insouciance winning against a definitely un-hip GS-7 welfare clerk. This, I’m sure, was KT’s reference.

davemc, you’re right. It was Wolfe’s use that popularized it in the ’70s, but I think the definition in the first sentence from Wiki will explain her reference to James, LA if he is still following.
.
I was really pointing out that I’m even older because I remembered Robert Ruark!

I am late to the party as usual. They are mopping the blood off the floor now. Not KT’s for sure. There is wayyyy to much for me to catch up on here. Just a few observations though, as I am never at a loss for that. KT is a very competent member of the media. She is not THE MEDIA, and has no obligation to defend it. Those who include the crazies on cable and radio as part of the media are really not paying attention. They are entertainers. Nothing more. I have been disgruntled with The Media on occasion, like in the lead up to invasion of Iraq. But then again, everybody participated in that frenzy…most disturbingly of all, the Congress. I proudly proclaim that I did not. I wavered when Bush landed on carrier for Mission Accomplished, but that was just a mental stumble on my part.
.
I will stop rambling. KT, thanks for your contributions here. Same to you MS and Joe. Thanks to Time for providing this forum. OK, I will shut up now.

dave,
Jack Shafer, not my favorite columnist, had something to say about that:
The Digital Slay-Ride: What’s killing newspapers is the same thing that killed the slide rule. – By Jack Shafer – Slate Magazine
.
I don’t celebrate the “demise of the media” but the demise of THIS media might not be a bad thing.

Re Shafer column…porn actors are suffering job losses?

That caught my eye as well, cincy.

…guess I’ll stick to day trading.

Yeah. I would.

…and just do the porn as a hobby.

Keep the day job.

That’s what I do.

The difference between pro porn and hobby porn? Fluffers. We don’t have fluffers.

You talk about suffering job losses. The fluffing industry is in worse shape than journalism. Those laid off journos are out of luck if that’s what they were thinking.
.
Viagra killed the fluffing industry, they say.

Funny you should say that James, Los Angeles…I always assumed you were a porn producer who lived in the San Fernando Valley and perhaps resembled the Eric Bogosian character in ‘Boogie Nights’ more than he’d like to admit.

digby has a barn burner up:
.
The other concerning thing is that both Brewer and Stoddard seem to be banking on the public validating their obsession by losing faith in Obama. It’s possible, but in no way is it assured. And the inevitable result of that is to make the press all the more determined to find something that will. They will come to see the president as having some sort of illegitimate hold on the public which must be broken. If it doesn’t take with this scandal, the press will harbor resentment and jump on the next one with even more fervor.

Well, I don’t live in the Valley.

Oops, I was thinking of ‘Wonderland’…it’s acutally Alfred Molina in ‘Boogie Nights’. Based on the same character…you get the drift.
.
Not the valley…but the hairy chest, gold chains and open gold satin robes?

Gold chains are sooooo 1980′s.

The Republican party is showing us that they are going to stay on the same path. The only way anything is going to change for the people that are planning and executing these smear tactics is to vote them out and put in completely new public servants. That is funny public servant, we pay their salary yet they control our money. Wow!

Then you shouldn’t have done that interview w/ Jay Rosen, the one where you couldn’t come up w/ a viable answer as to why there are no liberal voices at Time?
.
Aha. Now I see the nugget of the dispute. Cincy, I think you’re wrong here. I did not ask KT on as a media critic, but as a member of the media discussing issues with a media critic. Of course she should have come on to discuss it. It’s like pulling teeth to get these people to talk about these issues, even in private emails and phone calls. Speaking from experience in that respect.
.
You may not have liked her answers, but saying that she didn’t fulfill her role as media critic is simply unfair. That’s not what she was doing there, and I thought it was instructive.
.
I think Deborah Howell will be still more instructive, and I do NOT expect her to criticize the Post, nor will I press her to do so.

It’s just not the same around here…we’re down to 4 Time bloggers without Cox…and that was before Carney left!

Flogging a dead horse aren’t we? Time et al in their death-throes. When intelligent people (i.e. not republicans) want to read the news they consume stuff like this:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/17/spitzer/index.html

I like Karen–she’s a decent hardworking women, like probably a lot of our own friends and family members. And off the record, I’m sure when she reads someone like Greenwald, she must weep about her profession. And, no Karen, I’m not condemning you or assigning blame to you personally–but surely you’re more than capable of seeing that the entire profession failed miserably over the last 8 years. The orgasms over Blago-gate …

But how we judge her will prove increasingly irrelevant. By the time Barack the destroyer runs for reelection (how could things not be better off than 4 yrs ago?) the 4th estate as we know it will have ceased to exist. I’m personally hoping on my next visit to the US to see Scherer-the-barista at the local 4-bucks. Though the MSM has been a center-right estab. institution, cheering on Bush’s crusade for years, I’m not sure how I feel about the new media paradigm–reduced to left, right and the titallating piffle in the center, the Matthews wing of the current estab. press, soon to be disseminated exlusively by Yahoo et al in chip-sized superficiality, complete with emoticons.

Without an MSM media, when it boils down to Limbaugh & co. vs. the intellectuals, I have a hard time seeing long-term growth for the progressive agenda. Joe Six Pack, regardless of color, might connect more to the neo fascists. The sad fact is we need a real fourth estate, whatever the form (perhaps the best hope is if Soros etc. fund one), as our schools and families are fundamentally failing to educate kids. Buffet, Gates etc. seem keen on giving away their fortunes–why they can’t fund a USA Today of substance or a cable channel that works is beyond me. Helping those with AIDS in India is wonderful, but if Americans remain ignorant, what good will it do long term.

jcapan, I tried to follow your thoughts, as difficult as it was, until I got to “Americans remain ignorant”…that did cause me to pause and wonder what you are saying. Many ignorant Amerians to be sure. But I can’t take you seriously if you want to paint all Americans as ignorant. That is just rubbish.

Stream of consciousness–forgive me if my stream is other than linear. I don’t write to participate so much as to purge. If it makes sense to me… All other communication is secondary.

And, no, not all Americans. An appallingly large figure, yes.

An appallingly large figure, sadly, yes.

KT here–

Is this thread still alive? Davemc makes a very important point that those of you who are gloating about the demise of the media should think about. The kind of media that you say you despise (I’m looking at you, J,LA) are the only ones that AREN’T struggling. What is dying is depth and thoughtfulness, or as davemc noted:

Cable news, talk radio and the web have fueled the drive toward more opinion and less fact. And it’s those who will thrive. People tune in to get pissed off and argue. While the reporters and editors – those who slogged through details of school boards meetings, legislatures and social service agencies and dug up facts on the inequities in our towns — are a dying breed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/18/AR2008011802874.html

KT here again:

Oops. I totally screwed up those italics. That last sentence was mine, not Dave’s. If you really want a good idea of how this fees from the inside of this business, I would high recommend you read this piece by David Simon, the creator of “The Wire”:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/18/AR2008011802874.html

KT, I am horrified that cable news is the only profitable “news” model in today’s world. The last thing I want to see is newspapers and news weeklies disappear, because that is where most of the real reporting is done. Unless the only thing that matters is knowing every time a comely blonde is snatched on a beach in Barbados, cable news (or local TeeVee news) doesn’t serve us very well.
.
The challenge right now is to find an economic model that works. Jack Shafer has a good piece on this up at Slate:
.
I keep waiting for one of these distressed, failing newspapers to realize that it has nothing to lose and get a little crazy and create something brand new and brilliant for readers and advertisers. I keep being disappointed.
.
KT, I’m sure no one would mind if you started a new thread on this topic.

“Cable news, talk radio and the web have fueled the drive toward more opinion and less fact. And it’s those who will thrive. People tune in to get pissed off and argue. While the reporters and editors – those who slogged through details of school boards meetings, legislatures and social service agencies and dug up facts on the inequities in our towns — are a dying breed.”
.
I think you are conflating some things here, as well as blaming the victim a bit. What Simon is saying is that the modern profit model killed the newspapers (and, I would argue, the nightly news as well). That’s all about our MBA masters, the ones who have been using their vast wisdom about markets and business models to otherwise, you know, run the economy into the ground. Saying that it’s because people would rather turn on cable news “to get pissed off and argue” speaks more to the those who create, host and appear on CNN and MSNBC than the viewers themselves (I would argue that it’s a combination of a kind of modern addiction to constant newsy input and the dreck that constitutes their other daytime viewing options).
.
Yes, many more people now prefer to get their news online or on television. And, unfortunately, the age of CNN and online major dailies has conditioned us to expect our news for free. None of that says that the content must be crap. That’s a conscious decision made by ever-more consolidated news owners based on arbitrary profit models and a desire to control the narrative in a pro-establishment fashion. People want great content on both local and national levels and, yes, the newspapers and nightly news programs have suffered from the rise of new media but also from the decisions of corporations which have undermined their only real commodity: credibility.
.
Example: I was a loyal Washington Post subscriber for more than twenty years and probably still would be except for three reasons: 1) Fred Hiatt, 2) Deborah Howell and 3) the people who hired and retained them. Get the picture?

Shepherd, undoubtedly I did conflate issues about the destruction of the media systems. In my defense, it was only one paragraph. But to your points…
.
You’re right. Publishers and their corporate masters helped mortally wound newspapers with 20 & 30 percent profit margins, with gross misunderstanding of how to translate print to the web and with the belief that simply cutting staff is a good way out of their bind. KT was wise to point to Simon’s piece. He’s been there. He knows where the bodies are buried.
.
Rather than play on the strengths of print – a tradition of fair and honest reporting and depth of reporting – publishers have stepped back from foreign and regional coverage, hacked column inches to nothing and focused on gimmicks — ‘youth-oriented’ publications that no one reads and neighborhood throw-aways that do little but litter lawns. The result? Newspaper Lite that lacks substances, focuses on badly conceived ‘blogs’ and a rekindled interest in local coverage that looks more like old suburban shoppers. It’s more than sad.
.
But I can’t entirely let TV viewers and web consumers off the hook. The networks love shows like Hannity, Olbermann and O’Reilly, etc. because they’re cheap to make and put bodies in front of the screen. If people didn’t watch them, there would be no point in making them.
.
And if anyone thinks they’re getting news instead of opinionated bloviation out of the programs – and I include mainstream reporters who vie for a shot in front off the camera – they’re sadly deceiving themselves.
.
What to do? I don’t know. If I did, I’d be a consultant instead of unemployed. But I know whatever emerges – and some of Jay Rosen’s experimentation give hope – someone has to report the news, with honest, fair and factual writing that gives substance and context, not thinly veiled opinion or excited exultation about the process, whether inside baseball of politics or the crime porn of murdered pretty blondes.of the process – whether its politics or murdered pretty blondes.
.
As for Jack Shafer, he’s a nice man. But saying, I keep waiting for one of these distressed, failing newspapers to realize that it has nothing to lose and get a little crazy and create something brand new and brilliant for readers and advertisers.is like the advice on how to live like a millionaire: First, get a million dollars…

Lord, I miss preview.

I’m afraid that blaming people (the market) for choosing Hannity, O’Reilly and Olbermann (or Survivor, Desperate Housewives or Dancing With the Stars for that matter) is both pointless and misguided. The viewers don’t decide what choices they have and, these days, those choices have gotten pretty rotten, almost across the board. I’m a big believer in the power of leadership and, basically, people have been led astray by media and political elites for at least 30 years (let’s call it the “conservative” era).

In that light, I agree with everything else you have to say about high-quality journalism and news reporting. [Re]build it and they will come.