The High Sheriffs Do Davos

I see why there are no comments

Dee: I think they NEED some comments…
.
Not that mocking the high sheriffs is the best career move for me in the current environment.

Didn’t John McCain sing “Bomb, bomb, bomb Davos!” Or was it the Vatican? Well, both are worthy targets and surely there are enough bombs. Unintentionally propping up P-Luk’s theory about the fatcats running our media empire–snowing in the Swiss Alps vs. extreme poverty blocks away on South Capitol Street. When the media and pols are in bed with the fatcats, do you actually think they’re going to give anything other than token consideration to the wee little people out there struggling? That’s an honest question BTW. Straight satire. And all the better in that it’s not intentional.

snowing, skiing, sheeot, it’s time for a second cup of joe here in the Orient

Wow. It’s as though a veil fell from my eyes. I now understand the complexities of global economic change in a way I never thought possible.

Though I can’t imagine that rosti can beat chicken-fried steak for lifespan-reducing capability.

Haven’t been able to go to the gym for a while, so haven’t seen the CNBC morning features from Davos. Thanks for putting me back with the rich and famous.

And, surely I’m not the only one that recalled Debbie Does Dallas in conjunction with the title.

ivb: DDD reference was totally intentional. now, speaking of the gym, i’m heading there.

‘Debbie Does Davos’ might be a better movie. And just as alliterative.

Is it true that when you burp at Davos, it comes out a rainbow?

Ariana must be throwing a dinner party there this year I bet.
.
Off topic, but Josh Marshall has a point about how the press has let the Republicans say extremely retarded things during the stimulus debate. It’s one thing to do he said/she said on philosophical things, but facts are facts.

p-caf – glad I wasn’t drinking when I read your comment.
.
KT, when you are done getting all sweaty, I have a serious question for you as a serious journalist. Given that the teevee folks are a different breed, it is still astonishing to see how they rush to cover every inconsequential thing the RW throws out about the stimulus bill, and cover it in the least substantive manner possible.
.
As cincy noted in JNS’ grass thread: Here we are with this huge bill and all we’ve been talking about for the last couple days is birth control, how did that happen?(paraphrased). Our media is stupid beyond belief.
.
It is really astonishing. Josh Marshall is about as worked up as I have ever seen him. I fear he will have an aneurism:
.
Over the last few days I’ve been trying to take stock of an essential element of the current stimulus debate: namely, Hill Republicans have been getting a lot of air time and minimal press criticism for a series of arguments about the stimulus that are in most cases transparently ridiculous. For instance, I heard several House Republicans yesterday making the straight up argument that the renovation of the Capitol Mall wouldn’t create any jobs or stimulate the economy. Well, obviously any major building project creates jobs. Nothing could be more straightforward. Whether it’s the best long-term use of the money, in the sense of whether the building project will have spin-off effects creating greater productivity and growth over time is a decent question. And looking at what’s in the bill I find myself wishing that more of the more was being spent in a more concentrated fashion — largely on infrastructure projects. But every major building project creates jobs. . .
…
And yet for all of this, most reporters seem to take these non-sensical criticisms completely on face value, grading on a curve, as it were, not giving these folks a hard time because they’re well-liked much as we might with a dumb jock in the physics class who gets a free ride because no one expects anything different from him.
.
So my question. Is it possible for the chattering classes to take anything, anything at all, seriously? Collapse of civilization? Anything?

The Borgen Project has some good info on the cost of addressing global poverty.

$30 billion: Annual shortfall to end world hunger.
$550 billion: U.S. Defense budget

KT, I assumed the DDD was intentional! Too amusing not to be.
.
wvng, I shake my head with wonder at how bizarre this coverage has been. Last night on Hardball, Mike Pence and some Senator and Mathews seems to have decided that the whole package is terrible and it is his duty to stop it. All that I hear covered is how bad the plan is — listening to Boehner and Cantor right now. Only people saying anything about it. They whine and fuss that they weren’t consulted – how much Democratic input was there in the first six years of the Bush Admin. Grrrr.

Spiffy. When the “High Sheriffs” deign to return, could you ask them to get rid of the flippin’ pagination in this blog? You’d be my new best friend – for at least five minutes.

wvng: don’t get so down, dude. Ever heard of “fiddling while Rome burns”? Relax. It’ll all work out in the end – when we’re dead and buried.

wvng: not sure “most reporters” take these things at face value. we certainly haven’t here. but the solution to stoopid cable is very simple: change the channel. if people weren’t watching teh stoopid, they would quit putting it on the air.

Glad they’re there. I’m sure they’ll find financing sources for actual reporting.
.
Or is the motto of the New, Improved Journalism to be “Let ‘em eat GOP memos?”

wvng, I wonder how much impact programs like Hardball truly have? In 2nd Quarter 2008, Nielsens for the 5 p.m. cable shows had CNN’s Situation Room in first place with 25-54 age group with a whopping 186,000 average viewers. Fox’s ran second with 179,000 and Hardball in third with 171,000. The aggregate is roughly (I think)equal to the population of Portland, Oregon. Not exactly a big swath across the country.
.
You may say, “Yes, but it’s the newsmakers and heavy-hitters who watch.” Maybe, I don’t know. But even if they do, how how many votes have ever been changed or opinions influenced by the theatrical bombast of Blitzer or Matthews?
.
I doubt anything Chris Matthews says has much effect on voters concerned about jobs, healthcare, the mortgage, their kids schooling, etc. What impact he may have is diluted by the way newspapers, magazines, blogs, websites network news, cable news, etc. have fragmented our access to news and information. Indeed, I suspect Matthews and his confreres exist solely because we think they are important.
.
I’d say KT and Mr.Nice Guy have the correct attitude. Relax. The noisy storm will blow over soon enough.

Mr. Nice Guy – allow me to tack on a request for the return of numeration and the demise of this heinous “preview” function imposter that bogs my computer down.

KT: if people weren’t watching teh stoopid, they would quit putting it on the air. True, but lots of people do and will continue to watch it (me rarely because it causes me such pain). And the people who watch it, even smart people, are swayed by it. And the democracy that needs a vibrant 4th estate is harmed when significant portions of it fail to perform an honest job.
.
I know you don’t have an answer, I surely don’t. But watching the repub swarm on every channel at every moment over the last several days spewing utter nonsense that is either not challenged or actively enabled by media is terrifically frustrating.
.
/venting

wvng: not that many do. really. davemc has the numbers.
.
now, a lot of people DO listen and watch highly ideological programs, like limbaugh. but i think they are doing that primarily as reinforcement of what they already believe.
.
i repeat: turn. it. off.
.
i caught a little bit of hardball while i was in the gym, but only because i flipped channels when the re-runs of “everybody loves raymond” were in commercial.
.

‘If you don’t read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed.’
.
Mark Twain
.
What do you think he would say about cable news?
.
davemc321, the problem is not necessarily the gross numbers of people that watch, but the fact that they drive beltway CW by chattering endlessly. I mean, did you know that Al Gore said he invented the internet? I know that because Gwen Ifil told me about two years ago, many years after that fraud was disproven.

KT, not everyone loves Raymond.

wvng, to repeat: The average audience for Hardball in 2Q 2008 was 171,000. And half of those were probably Matthews’ relatives.

I understand the concern about beltway chatter, though I pretty sure it mostly substantiates a listener’s biases. I never heard anyone say” I was going to vote for Gore until he started claiming to invent the internet.”

Even Limbaugh’s ratings aren’t what they seem to be. When they give you his listening audience, it is actually the amount of people who listen 5 minutes at one point during the week. I think at any given time, he has about 5,000,000 listening.
.
The one thing we political junkies need to appreciate better is that most Americans are totally tuned out to the news, and politics. The cable news ratings are dwarfed by the network newscasts.

Lost in my rant is the that KT’s blaming the audience is convenient to her and her esteemed colleagues b/c it frees them, top to bottom, from fighting for a better media themselves. Look, in other words, we’ve all sold out, but if you people out there who we’re assaulting with this crap would just turn it off or stop reading, we’d really be prompted to deliver a better product.
~
Again, this is not directed against you personally KT–you’re simply the unfortunate figurehead of a (I hope) collapsing medium.

I’m sure they are working diligently on an article about how John Thain’s hubris didn’t allow him to see the folly of redecorating his office while his business went to hell.

The blinders some wear are amazing…..

trifecta: “Even Limbaugh’s ratings aren’t what they seem to be.” perhaps, but he can still marshal his audience to besiege republicans very effectively: This morning — because of what he called “high volume of phone calls and correspondence” in response to his comments — Gingrey issued a retraction, declaring his loyalty to hate radio. “I see eye-to-eye with Rush Limbaugh,” he said, later adding that he, Sean Hannity, and Newt Gingrich were “the voices of the conservative movement’s conscience.”
.
“The cable news ratings are dwarfed by the network newscasts.” And exactly how much better are the network broadcasts?

KT – I’m with wvng. It takes a real concentration of good (say, your own characteristic quality of reporting) to push out the bad (e.g., the lazy-@$$ echoing of simplistic TP’s). Apologists for crap reporting, even if they aren’t practitioners themselves, assure more crap reporting.
.
davemc – good reporting often provides at least the opportunity to question one’s own biases. People given an alternative to relying on teh stoopid might have to reconsider what they think they know. Some will tune out fact and reason, but that’s hardly reason to expect everyone to settle for $#!t sandwich “journalism.”

The one thing we political junkies need to appreciate better is that most Americans are totally tuned out to the news, and politics. The cable news ratings are dwarfed by the network newscasts.
‘
You can say _that_ again. Just watch Leno with his “Man on the Street” segments. Embarrassing to think these people can walk around on the streets untethered.
‘
OT to KT: I know how much time _I_ spend on this forum, so I’m very curious, with all of your interaction – much appreciated, don’t get me wrong – are you suffering from a time-crunch elsewhere in your life? Are the Swampkids getting enough face time? Don’t mean to pry, but, like I said, I’m curious.

Dearest KT:

Could you please free my comment/rant from moderation. Or have the Matrix puppeteers in Davos worked their magic!? I managed to avoid the really bad words, I think.

Thank you kindly,

JC in Japan

we’d really be prompted to deliver a better product.
‘
Is that the excuse for the existence of The Weekly Star? Sun? National Enquirer? What does their existence say about us as sentient beings?

I agree that the cable shows has little persuasive impact on the highly partisan audience it reaches. But simply switching channel negates the role they play as framers of the debate for news organization with more significant reach.

And besides KT if I turned off cable where would I go to see a bully like Dick Armey tell Joan Walsh to go wash the dishes the men folk are talking.

KT again (twice today) happens to be right. Cable TeeVee responds to market forces. The problem is that they are excruciatingly slow to adjust and are hence a lagging indicator of the direction the Country is going. I’ve spent a good deal of time, concerned that I was wrong about this, but the successful Obama campaign has revealed that really ARE fed up in ways that Chris Matthews is yet unable to fathom.

I don’t deny that the boobs running the tube respond to market forces–my question is should they? And since my larger comment was moderated into the void, I’ll restate that there’s no distinction between the WaPo & Tweety, between the NYT’s and Georgy Stepho. In other words, there is no 4th estate in the traditional sense of the term–it’s long been of a piece with the other estates of the realm. I don’t want a media that responds (laggingly or otherwise) to the winds of change or whiffs of popularity. An independent non-corp brand is needed (visions of utopia I know). While a number of blogs serve this role, they do so only to an elite segment of the pop.

@ jcapan -
.
There’s a handy work-around for some words like p00p – use a “zero” instead of an “oh” and it sails right past the bot.
.

jcapan: the media has always been a for-profit business. and as to the “traditional sense” of the 4th estate, i’d argue we’ve seen (and survived) a whole lot worse. william randolph hearst pretty much started the spanish-american war:
.
http://www.pbs.org/crucible/frames/_journalism.html
.
and grover cleveland wasn’t exactly thrilled with the journalistic standards of the press in his day:
.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2008/01/17/sex-lies-and-major-headlines.html
.
somehow, the american people have always been smart enough to discern the good journalism from the bad, and the republic has survived.

I agree that if we don’t like what we see on TV we can change the channel. But we also have the right to complain.
.
If Ford makes sh!tty cars that kill people, we can choose not to buy those cars. But we can also tell Ford to stop making sh!tty cars that kill people.

cliff:

complaining isn’t nearly as effective as not buying the ford.

or better yet, buying the car that lives up to your standards.
.
we are at a pivotal moment in our business. some outlets are going to survive and some aren’t. watching shows and then getting worked up about them and yelling about them only adds to their ratings. meanwhile, the quality stuff is what is dying.
.

I’m going to get to work on a 12-step program for Swampland commenters to get them off their addiction to programs they hate.

“the media has always been a for-profit business. and as to the “traditional sense” of the 4th estate, i’d argue we’ve seen (and survived) a whole lot worse. william randolph hearst pretty much started the spanish-american war”
~
Yes, I’ve been to San Simeon–love those Euro-ceilings brought over by boat–and I own Citizen Kane. Actually used to show it my classes. But yellow is always in varying shades of fashion, from ochre to banana, with American media. And starting a war–is it different than turning away during the gross sales job practiced on the citizenry by the Bush admin, or worse yet enabling it? So, apologists need not turn back the clock to 1898 to find journalism at its worst–it’s pretty much a onstant with a few intrepid exceptions. Where you see quality, others see [ ]
~
And, thanks re: the lost comment–as if it matters.

I’m going to get to work on a 12-step program for Swampland commenters to get them off their addiction to programs they hate.
.
Good idea. It’s not a problem I have personally though. Any chance this is a generational issue? Maybe older people are used to having fewer news options, so they don’t think to turn off the TV.
.
That said, I am very proud that a few days ago I read my first MoDo column in several weeks. Although in that case my avoidance has less to do with page clicks and more to do with not being unnecessarily enraged on a weekly basis. She’s just in love with that Tracy Flick comparison…

Michael Elliot? Hmm, why does that name sound familiar? Oh yeah:

http://gawker.com/5116568/time-survivors-rage-at-jet+setting-editor

“Elliott spends much of his life jetting between New York (where he lives), London (from where he edits the Europe-Middle East-Africa edition) and Hong Kong (from where he edits the Asia edition),” according to a 2007 profile in the UK Independent.

And Elliott purportedly will travel only in business class. This produced, it is claimed, to a 2008 Elliott travel expenditure of $250,000 — “about two-and-a-half [full-] time journalists” in the eyes of a rank-and-filer.

It is a measure of the anger among Time staff that business-class travel could produce such resentment. The magazine’s layoffs have fallen especially hard on its international editions, and Elliott has been given hatchet duty. In November, amid the layoffs, one angry staffer described Elliott to us as the “international editor who has managed to bamboozle [Time Inc. Editor In Chief] John Huey into thinking he knows what he is doing.”

Nice to know the rosti is as good as ever at Davos.

Any chance this is a generational issue? Maybe older people are used to having fewer news options, so they don’t think to turn off the TV.
.
Beg your pardon? I’m 62 and I don’t watch Hardball, Blitzer, Hannity or any of the cable shows. Not because they’d make me mad (they would) but because there is no nutritional value.
.
There has been a tendency among news consumers to equate opinion with news. I think there is something in us that likes news we can get mad at. You say give us excellent, honest reporting. And I point at the Christian Science Monitor that has now ceased its run as a daily dead-tree paper.
.
Admittedly, news organizations are guilty too often of blurring those lines. As KT noted, the news industry is in the midst of great transition – and hasn’t handled it well at all.
.
Look, there was no excuse for Judith Miller or the institutional arrogance of the Times for refusing to see how they’d sold the war. And I don’t care for MoDo or Milbank or Tweety. The news business lost its way and traded honest, factual reporting for either gutless acquisition to power or entertainment cum smirky cleverness.
.
No one is saying you have to except, as someone put it, crap journalism. But we do have to look harder to find the good stuff. It’s there. We just have to dig harder for it.
.
And stop watching cable alleged news shows. You’re disposition will improve and your blood pressure drop.

“During the campaign, then-Sen. Obama put forth the toughest ethics and lobbying reform policy in history,” Vietor said, “and now he’s acting on it to reduce the influence of lobbyists in Washington.”

… … …

Here are former lobbyists Obama has tapped for top jobs:

Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm.

Tom Vilsack, secretary of agriculture nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year on behalf of the National Education Association.

William Lynn, deputy defense secretary nominee, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for defense contractor Raytheon, where he was a top executive.

William Corr, deputy health and human services secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until last year for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, a non-profit that pushes to limit tobacco use.

David Hayes, deputy interior secretary nominee, was registered to lobby until 2006 for clients, including the regional utility San Diego Gas & Electric.

Mark Patterson, chief of staff to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was registered to lobby as recently as last year for financial giant Goldman Sachs.

Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, was registered to lobby until 2005 for clients, including the Coalition for Asbestos Resolution, U.S. Airways, Airborne Express and drug-maker ImClone.

Mona Sutphen, deputy White House chief of staff, was registered to lobby for clients, including Angliss International in 2003.

Melody Barnes, domestic policy council director, lobbied in 2003 and 2004 for liberal advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the American Constitution Society and the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Cecilia Munoz, White House director of intergovernmental affairs, was a lobbyist as recently as last year for the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group.

Patrick Gaspard, White House political affairs director, was a lobbyist for the Service Employees International Union.

Michael Strautmanis, chief of staff to the president’s assistant for intergovernmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.

… … …

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090128/pl_politico/18128

… … …

Some change, that one.

Move On indeed.

cliff: complaining isn’t nearly as effective as not buying the ford.
.
Well, considering that both the car companies and the newspapers are eating piles and piles of sh!t, I mean f@cking mountains here, it looks like you have a point.
.
But at what point do you in the media take a step back and reflect on all this sh!t that your business is eating?
Because it certainly appears that you (you in the media, not you personally) all have no idea of how to relate your current conditions to your job performance. And you certainly have no intention of listening to the people standing on the sidelines yelling, “Hey! Maybe you should stop putting out such a sh!tty product that KILLS PEOPLE!”
.
So I don’t know. When the ship is sinking, maybe stop drilling holes in the bottom.
.
But then again, I’m just a dirty f@cking internet hippy so pay no attention to me.

And FYI I’ll probably repost that tomorrow because this is most likely a dead thread.

Since Cliff has picked up the bile-baton I was laboring under earlier, I thought I’d pivot and offer up some utopic visions, since all 3 of us awake here are musing about, guffaw, a functioning 4th estate:
~
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090209/barber?rel=hp_currently
~
But it’s easier to be optimistic in broad daylight, 4:46pm here, and nothing frees one from doom & gloom politics like the Japanese–the most apolitical race I know. Allows me to decompress. So, Karen, I love you man!!!
~
Soundtrack if you read the above piece–Lennon, Imagine.

KT: I’m going to get to work on a 12-step program for Swampland commenters to get them off their addiction to programs they hate.
.
And when are you going to develop the 12-step program for “journalists” from all walks of the profession, even TIME, whose worlds are ruled by Drudge? Like Tapper yesterday at the WH.
(http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/twittering_from_the_white_hous.php)
.

Okay, wvng, here are your first steps:

Step 1: Rather than complaining here about something you found offensive somewhere else, write a letter or email to the actual reporter/organization in question spelling out your complaint and informing them that you are not going to read/view their product.
.
Step 2: Seek out other sources of information, patronize them, give them buzz. (When was the last time anyone here mentioned something they had seen on NewsHour?)
.
Step 3: Tell everyone you know to do the same.

FYI: When something gets mentioned on Drudge, it generates gazillions of hits to the website that is mentioned. Market forces, my friends. You’ve got the power.

And I would add here:
.
Yes you can.

(When was the last time anyone here mentioned something they had seen on NewsHour?) I did last week. In frustration that they, like NPR, have slipped more into the faux “balance” over the last ten years instead of simply covering stories factually which is what they used to do exceedingly well.
.
As for Drudge ruling certain worlds, I’m not talking about hits and market forces. I’m talking about Drudge functioning as a de facto story editor and driving RW smear stories into the msm.
.
Drudge and the Politico — poisonously joined at the hip
.
The Anatomy of a Smear

wvng:

also, to answer your question as to what i intend to do:
.
i intend to continue to try to practice journalism to the best of my abilities, and adapt as best i can to changes in the medium, for as long as i can still find someone who is willing to pay me to do that. but you know what? looking at what is going on around me in the business, i’m not sure how long that will be.

also, wvng, your greenwald link pretty much proves my point:
.

As I noted earlier this week, The Politico has instantaneously become one of the most-linked sites (I would guess the single most-linked) on The Drudge Report. Drudge links produce a volume of traffic unlike any other. Central to the business and political plan of The Politico is, quite transparently, overt courting of Matt Drudge and active cooperation with him.

KT:
i intend to continue to try to practice journalism to the best of my abilities, and adapt as best i can to changes in the medium, for as long as i can still find someone who is willing to pay me to do that. but you know what? May it be a very very long time. I think, and I think most of the critters here would agree, that you are well positioned to succeed in the evolving journalism world. I’m sure you noticed that Matt Cooper joined TPM a short while ago.

K Tizzle
.
So if I am reading you correctly, we should revert to the head in the sand policy when dealing with “news” mediums that push bullsh1t headlines that then get picked up by more “mainstream” news mediums and run with? Somehow I doubt that will help our cause. In point of fact whenever that kind of Michael Dukakis strategy has been employed it has pretty much gone down in flames. Let me illuminate what I mean. You go on CNN and MSNBC from time to time right? Well the Politico folks go on many of the same shows that you do. That means they are lended the exact same credibility that you are. Now I am not saying you should be come a crusader against Politico or even other media outlets like Somersby. But its for that reason that we b1tch and moan so much when other Swamp folks push erroneous and or biased information. If I was working at a company and our credibility was threatened by a coworker which may actually lead to reduced revenue at some point I personally would have issue with that co worker and want to take them to task to show that not all of the people at our company are so lacking in integrity. Again thats not necessarily your role at all. But it helps to explain why we complain to you about it, and why we probably won’t stop complaining any time soon.
.
A couple of days ago Joe Klein intimated that Susan Rice had made a rookie mistake when she made a statement that there is no evidence she actually made based on a report from the AP and a question posed to Robert Gibbs at a press conference based on that report. I and others threw a sh1t fit and finally Joe posted an update acknowledging the bare bones minimum that the evidence was at the least confusing and it appeared the AP reporter contradicted himself in his own article. Now that might not seem like much, and admittedly it wasn’t the mea culpa I was shooting for, but people read Time and Swampland because they expect honest and credible reporting. At least there is now an acknowledgement in the journo world that the AP might be full of sh1t on that one from what most folks would consider a credible source. Now if we didn’t complain about the sh1tty reporting from a different source would that have happened? I doubt it. In fact Joe said he would “get back to us” with a clarification that never came. But in my opinion in that case as in others complaining actually worked and served the greater good. And it was a much better outcome imho than writing a letter to the editor for the AP.

sgwhite: as much as i love you guys, i think that venting here is not going to have as much of an effect on the perps than cutting off their livelihood.
.
wvng: i don’t recall what newshour segment you were mentioning, but in my view, they do “balance” the way you should. they put on two sides of a debate, and give them time (something cable doesn’t do) to make their arguments, with the moderator (who is quite informed on the issue being discussed) asking tough and pointed questions. i have also, with very rare exception, not seen them allow shouting or baseless attacks. i almost always come away knowing things about both sides that i didn’t before.

K Tizzle
.
Oh but what you don’t understand is that we don’t necessarily want all of the perps to change. For many of them its simply what they do. Many times what we really want is just an alternate similarly if not more credible source, to come out against them, exposing their factual inaccuracies and making a dent in their credibility so now when the average media consumer clicks on their link they will take what they read with at least some grain of salt. Now yeah it would be great if the offenders started doing a better job but whats more important is that when they don’t there is at least an alternate voice out there in opposition. Otherwise no matter what, they will get to frame the conversation in whichever way their choose and without a competing theory theirs will be accepted as fact. See also lead up to the Iraq War.

sg: one more thing worth mentioning (i’m hanging around home this morning because, despite the entreaties of our new president, school opened two hours late this morning because of “weather”): there are a lot fewer or us in this business these days, doing exponentially more work, thanks to the web. we just don’t have time any more to make that third or fourth phone call, or delve into that in-depth story that is crying to be written. (this blog, for instance, is a relatively small part of my much-larger portfolio here at time.) the true specialists have all but disappeared from the newsroom. editors are swamped. errors are going to happen more, not less, not because people are lazy or biased, but because they don’t have the time they used to.

KT, they are still the best of the daily news shows for the reasons you listed, but they are simply not as good as they used to be. Neither is NPR, which I’ve been listening to for over 30 years.
.
KT: i think that venting here is not going to have as much of an effect on the perps than cutting off their livelihood. That is the key issue, isn’t it. You may have noticed numerous discussions here on precisely that problem, and no one has anything like a viable answer. Because, as you noted from the Greenwald link: “Drudge links produce a volume of traffic unlike any other.”
.
There is zero penalty for lousy “journalism” as long as it makes money.
.
Howdy, sgw.

sgw: Now yeah it would be great if the offenders started doing a better job but whats more important is that when they don’t there is at least an alternate voice out there in opposition. Case in point was the Krugman on This Week episode last weekend. As Open Left noted, what would that segment have been like without Paul? The talking heads, Will, Donaldson, Roberts, Steph, and Fiorino would have lived entirely within the RW frame without Paul to say, in response to Donaldson’s “was my explanation it good enough for gov’t work” – “well, no, it wasn’t.”
.
What is needed are more real experts and fewer talking heads.

Just to add another perspective, is it possible that the assumption that there are only two sides to an argument a major part of the problem. The constant focus of the media to instigate fights between the usual suspects may feed their addiction to car crashes but it does little to stimulate substantive debate.

K Tizzle
.
What you may or may not realize is that in many cases we can be the extra leg work for you and others. No we can’t conduct interviews (well maybe jayackroyd can) but what we do and most likely will continue to do is scour the net looking for source links covering different topics which to our mind have either been misreported or underreported. To me that should be part of the model of the transition to new media. Now I realize that many times you in particular have utilized the things we throw out in comments like in your updates. What would be great is if more Swamp folks weren’t so defensive about their work and were willing to read the comments and follow the stuff we link to even if it flies in the face of what they think they know. That doesn’t mean they have to write every story the way we would want them to, but it does mean that sometimes you can get that fourth or fifth source right here from the comments section. And the truth is if somebody (hint hint) wanted to change the game they could actually school their commenters on where to find the best sources of information in their opinion. Honestly when you look at a lot of the big name, more credible bloggers like Josh Marshall many times he will point to something a person left in comments that either got him to thinking about what might be the good subject to a story, or that pointed him towards more information on a story he had already covered, even if that information might refute something he had already posted. That to me is where outside of the box thinking needs to be incorporated to help compensate for increased cuts in manpower for long time news sources like Time. At least thats just my opinion.

howdy wvng

i intend to continue to try to practice journalism to the best of my abilities, and adapt as best i can to changes in the medium, for as long as i can still find someone who is willing to pay me to do that. but you know what? looking at what is going on around me in the business, i’m not sure how long that will be.
.
The fact that you’re saying this in a blog exchange with commenters shows you’ll do just fine! You’re an excellent journalist and you’re not a dinosaur about technology. I worry about other journalists though and I also wonder who would even go into journalism in this current economic environment. I’m pondering career choices now and journalism was not even on the list because it doesn’t fit my skill set and interests, but even if I were interested in journalism I’m not sure I’d try anyway. I saw that the new mother who writes the Work-Life balance blog has taken a severance package. Do I want to be her in 10 years? No.
.
I honestly don’t know what kind of person would decide to become a journalist right now, except for the independently wealthy.

Dee: Just to add another perspective, is it possible that the assumption that there are only two sides to an argument a major part of the problem. The constant focus of the media to instigate fights between the usual suspects may feed their addiction to car crashes but it does little to stimulate substantive debate. Yes, it is a major part of the problem. But a much bigger part is when, in order to provide balance, they provide equal weight to “both sides” when actually one side is actually bat$hit insane.
.
Somewhere out there in intertube land there is a wonderful video of Obama’s Science Advisor JOhn Holdren talking about that problem as it concerns the global warming/climate change “debate.” Some guy who has no actual credentials in the field is allowed on teevee to say things that he believes, for which there is no scientific evidence, but that he can say in a few short sentences. Then the person who actually knows something, has to try and respond to something stupid in an equal number of short sentences because we are a sound-bite culture. Which leads to the American public thinking that there is actually a debate, and that climate change isn’t a big deal.

sgw: more credible bloggers like Josh Marshall many times he will point to something a person left in comments that either got him to thinking about what might be the good subject to a story, or that pointed him towards more information on a story he had already covered, even if that information might refute something he had already posted. — which is precisely what led to the US Attorney firing story that Carney poopoohed right in these here pages.
.
That is the new model for journalism, and it is a very powerful one.

Related story:
.
Karl Rove is pontificating about the Obama White House. He seems particularly concerned that four people now share his old office. The guy who directed George Bush’s strategies — the very strategies that have us on the brink of economic depression and entangled in two wars — that guy is worried about who gets what office in the Obama White House. What’s worse, of course, is that the pundits will eat this up. Rove’s words will ricochet across cable news today. None of those who quote Rove will wonder why he’s got any authority to talk about an effective White House. Rove still plays the press corps — and they still let him.
.
That the msm broadly accepts Rove as an honest broker of any information, even the weather, is a hige part of the problem.

What time does the self-flagellation seminar start? Sackcloth and ashes optional?

Hmmm, I have one comment in moderation, and two with the same you tube link just vanished.
.
Are we in Chile?

The problem, right here at TIME: The entire Republican caucus, we now know, balked anyway. Time’s Mark Halperin, naturally, is blaming Obama.

Let me go back to something KT wrote: there are a lot fewer or us in this business these days, doing exponentially more work, thanks to the web. we just don’t have time any more to make that third or fourth phone call, or delve into that in-depth story that is crying to be written. … the true specialists have all but disappeared from the newsroom. editors are swamped. errors are going to happen more, not less, not because people are lazy or biased, but because they don’t have the time they used to.
.
In 2008, more than 15,500 journalism jobs vanished. In January 2009 alone, 550+ jobs are gone.
.
As publishers put more and more resources into digital, the mish-mash of news, opinion, rumor and quick-hit stories will increase dramatically. And there will be fewer and fewer people to do it. The news personnel at the paper where I worked decreased nearly 50 percent over the past five years. That’s bodies who walked out the door. When I left, reporters were already expected to file blog items daily in addition to covering their beats or regular assignments. Plans were in place for reporters to also do their own videos for the web. You don’t know frustration until you’ve just left a complicated hearings/trial/police investigation and you have to file four grafs “to the web,” RIGHT THEN, though you haven’t had time to sort out the pieces or make a phone call.
.
Whether estimable journalists like KT survive has nothing to do with her skills, her knowledge, her energy or her age. It’s how few people do publishers feel they can get away with. The shift to digital news is as much about maximizing profits as entering the Brave New World of news.
.
There is a call here for journalism to to a better job, and I say, “Amen.” And there is a place for ‘citizen journalists” to do so(how I hate that term. Reporters are citizens too.) You want journalists to be more thorough, be more fair, be more honest. We can do that. But not alone. And, frankly, a few of you want journalists to talk only to the ‘right’ people and ignore those liars and charlatans on the other side. Yet we have to talk to the liars and the charlatans to be fair, honest and thorough.
.
Sorry for the length, but I loved being a reporter and the sense you were actually doing some good in the world. And I hate seeing it collapse ineffectually into itself.

Oops. Forgot to close out the quoted material. Guess that’s why they made editors.

Looks like my filthy mouth got me put into KT’s Sphere of Deviance. But here’s a question on the business end of it anyway:
Highways have never been made into a profitable business (to my knowledge) but we still have them because we still need them.
.
How is an honest media any different? Why should it be slaved to the profit margin when the profit margin has been shown to be so severely harmful to journalism?

Highways are managed by governments, state and federal. I don’t think you want your news media controlled by the government, Cliff.
.
The problem isn’t so much that media are commercial ventures. For decades, the public value of newspapers – comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable – were an important part of the mix. Running in the black was a bonus. With the advent in recent years of the escalation of ownership by large conglomerates, large profit margins – 15 to 20 percent – became the standard. Shareholder interests soon overwhelmed the public good.

[...] a mere 37 years old. (And a boss, I might add, with a slightly seditious streak; he encouraged my frequent barbs at the High [...]