Yellow Journalism is now the norm -- Daily Howler

[IrateCitizen]

The mainstream press obviously does not have a favorable image on these boards for most of us. But yesterday's Howler spelled it out in plain detail just how bad the situation is, that some of the biggest names actually KNOW how sniveling and spineless they are, yet they can't seem to realize their culpability in what's going on.

I'll leave the rest for you to read, if your blood pressure isn't yet high enough....

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh051704.shtml

NOW THEY TELL US (PART 1)! Pundits snooozed on the road to Iraq. Jim Lehrer has a strange explanation:

MONDAY, MAY 17, 2004

Here's one small excerpt to get you going. Read the rest through the link, you won't be disappointed.

LEHRER: You touched on something else when you asked the question. Let’s say a group of journalists had gotten onto that. It would have been difficult to have had debates about that going in, when the president and the government of the—it’s not talking about “occupation.” They’re talking about—it would have been—it would have taken some—you’d have had to have gone against the grain.
MATTHEWS: Right. You’d also have come off as kind of a pointy-head trying to figure out some obscure issue here.

LEHRER: Exactly.

MATTHEWS: Not good guys and bad guys.

LEHRER: Negative. Negativism.

Could “courage” be the word Lehrer sought? Did he want to say: “It would have taken some courage” for the nation’s press “to have gone against the grain” pre-Iraq? We were surprised to hear Lehrer say how “difficult” those debates would have been. Inevitably, we thought of Elisabeth Bumiller, explaining why Bush got softball questions in his last pre-war press conference (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 3/25/04):

BUMILLER: I think we were very deferential because…it’s very intense, it’s frightening to stand up there. Think about it, you’re standing up on prime-time live TV asking the president of the United States a question when the country’s about to go to war. There was a very serious, somber tone that evening, and no one wanted to get into an argument with the president at this very serious time.

[Eric J in MN]

1. It's an "obscure issue" that an invasion of a country is followed

Apparently to Chris Matthews:

It's an "obscure issue" that an invasion of a country is followed by an occupation.

[IrateCitizen]

4. There's also the open disdain for intellectualism

At least intellectualism as defined by examining all sides of an issue, along with providing some kind of context -- evidenced by the "pointy head" remark, and reference to "good guys, bad guys".

The way in which ignorance is elevated to something to aspire to in this country, while intellectualism is disdained, just makes me want to SCREAM!!!!

[nodictators]

13. And Occupation is followed by Subjugation

Is that "obscure" to these clowns.

The credulous media buys the "handover of power" crap too.

Colin Powell admitted on Sunday that the regime has veto power over the Iraqi ministers that are appointed in the "handover."

This is just like another rearrangment of the deck chairs on the Titanic.

[IrateCitizen]

14. Well, Powell backed himself into having to make that qualifier...

... after he publicly stated that the US would pull its forces out should the Iraqi government say that it didn't want them there.

So, by rigging the game, the US is assured of the Iraqi government not wanting them to leave.

:argh:

Anyone else feel like you're living in an increasingly Orwellian world these days?

[BurtWorm]

2. kick. This is a must read if you want to know why US news media SUCK!!!!

Millionaire Pundit Values.

:kick:

[patriotvoice]

3. A culture of ditto-heads

No one thinks critically or asks probing questions. It's not fear, it's laziness and, in America, laziness is rewarded.

--
Journalist X: Mr. President. Millions of people world-wide have marched and are continuing to march against this war. Not just foreigners, but Americans. They claim that this war is unneeded and that the information your team has is all speculation. How would you address the concerns of Americans marching against this war?

POTUS: This people don't have know -- access -- to the resources we do. We know of suiciders and other evil doers. (removed for sanity)

Journalist X: I have performed some cursory research on the Internet and found that there seem to be many inconsistencies in your assertions. (insert one of a dozen examples). How do you respond to this?

POTUS: I don't know about them -- that. We've got good people in the CIA and our intelligences is good. We have got such good -- powerful -- information that I rely on my staff for all my information.

blah blah.

[IrateCitizen]

5. I disagree slightly...

There is a certain amount of fear involved. The pundits and "journalists" in question all live very comfortable lives, are very well-paid for what they do, and travel in elite circles. For them to openly question what is going on could result in a reduction in their standard of living and being resigned to occupying a less visible "status" in society. Like many human beings, they sacrifice their integrity and beliefs for a certain comfort level.

But you're spot-on on the certain amount of laziness involved. Somersby hits on this WRT Lehrer right here:

Might we be permitted a question? If Lehrer had gotten up each morning and studied the news (see below), is there a chance he would have been “smart enough” to anticipate the problems of occupation? And if Lehrer cut back on that brilliant lifestyle–if he weren’t so “active socially” among D.C. swells–might he have found it less “difficult” to conduct those debates we missed?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

6. I'm reminded of a segment on the Daily Show a few days back

in which they played a clip of a British journalist relentlessly questioning Tony Blair, and Jon Stewart's comment was, "Why can't we have journalists like that?"

[IrateCitizen]

8. That also came through on a recent NOW with Bill Moyers...

... in which he interviewed the recently ousted head of the BBC.

The guy talked about an interview that the BBC did with Donald Rumsfeld, in which Rummy seemed taken aback by the way in which the journalist "pursued" him for answers to the questions throughout the interview. The former BBC head said that the interview had actually been friendly by British standards, but that American officials were so unaccustomed to actually having to defend themselves to journalists that he acted like he felt he was being hounded.

Then again, the BBC operates independent from ratings and profit margins, and instead concentrates more on actual journalism....

[BurtWorm]

17. Isn't it bizarre that ratings and profit margins dictate a conservative

media? I don't quite get that. I understand that the corporations that own the media may censor the news or bias it. But why doesn't the market demand aggressive competent news reporters? Well, of course the market we're talking about is the US market... Still, I think the suppliers must be exerting far more influence on the process than the consumers. And, thus, we wind up with the equivalent of a government organ for a dictatorship of the corporate class.

[IrateCitizen]

18. That's a common misnomer from the left

The fact is that ratings and profit margins don't really dictate much of a "conservative" bias. Rather, the bias tends toward being a wholly commericial one.

For example, if you want to have a population that bases its existence on the consumption of consumer goods and services (this is what our society is all about, anymore), do you really want them to think critically about what they are doing? Of course not. You want to keep them susceptible to the manufacturing of wants, which relies on more basal instincts.

I think that in-depth reporting and intellectual discussion actually inhibit this process -- so, therefore it is eschewed for the quick soundbite, the distractions, the fluff that has become modern-day infotainment.

Conservatives bemoan the liberal bias because of the way the media approaches cultural and social norms. Liberals bemoan it because it doesn't talk about the real issues. The truth is, both of them are right and wrong at the same time. The media's main role seems to be the enforcement of a compliant, obedient and uncritical public. That's good for corporate sales, after all -- but bad for democracy.

[BurtWorm]

19. You're not contradicting my assertion that it's the suppliers driving

content rather than the consumers, contrary to the usual explanation we get from the suppliers, that they're just giving the public what it wants.

[IrateCitizen]

20. That's correct, but it wasn't your assertion

Your assertion was that a market-driven media concerned with profit margins and ratings naturally became conservative.

I disagreed, and told you why I believe that to be incorrect.

However, if you want to discuss how our media is supplier-driven, catering to the lowest common denominator, I'll express my total and complete agreement.

[BurtWorm]

21. I thought it was you who made that assertion...

And I was saying that I didn't understand how that could be and explained why I didn't get it. And then concluded that suppliers drive the content without respect to what the viewers want, which is the exact opposite of the way producers--including the very journalists we're talking about--explain the sorry state of affairs: "It's not us, it's you,. We're just giving you what you want."

[Flubadubya]

9. It's mostly greed....

This is the age of the millionaire pundit, and the question lies in "Wherein do their loyalties lie?"

It may well be a combination of fear and laziness that prevents our journalists today from doing their duty, but what drives them toward the Republican masters most is their accumulated wealth and their infinite desire to keep it and watch it grow. They know only too well which is the hand that feeds them... they will lick it every time, and never bite!

[Jacobin]

7. If they aren't up to the job because its too "tough"

Maybe they should be flipping burgers and let someone take care of it for them.

Whiney assed punks

[gulfcoastliberal]

10. NY Times

Somerby said one theory why they consistently bash Dem presidential candidates and slant the coverage to the right is they want Repug presidents for the FCC. Whatever it is, the NYT is absolutely the worst when it comes to covering White House campaigns. Krugman is their only column worth reading.

[BurtWorm]

16. Bob Herbert is worth reading as well.

And their lead unsigned editorials are frequently much harder hitting than they've ever been, since Gail Collins took over the page. But the rest is shit--Brooks, Safire, Kristof, Friedman, Dowd... :puke:

[buddhamama]

11. I heard Amy Goodman speak on Sunday

about Independent Media in a Time of War-- name of documentary which was screened.

Amy quoted Bumiller in her talk:
"BUMILLER: I think we were very deferential because…it’s very intense, it’s frightening to stand up there. Think about it, you’re standing up on prime-time live TV asking the president of the United States a question when the country’s about to go to war. There was a very serious, somber tone that evening, and no one wanted to get into an argument with the president at this very serious time."

In the weeks before Bush gave his nightime press conference
the polls indicated that the majority of public favored continued inspections and diplomacy.

Did the networks etc reflect this in their coverage, NO.
Journalists failed the American People plain and simple.
And the Media became the mouthpiece of the Pentagon.

[PeaceProgProsp]

12. "Come off as some pointy-head"????

That's such an subtle yet explicit affirmation of what the Bush administration wants people to feel: that's knowledge, or being smart, is a bad quality.

Who wants to be a pointy-head, and go against the grain? It's better to react based on emotion and to underachieve. It leaves all the power and wealth to the people at the top, like Bush.

[charlie]

15. Sy Hersh is pissed about it too

When Hersh spoke at Harvard in March, he said: "I have never seen my peers as frightened as they are now." In the middle of the Iraq war, Goodman asked him on the air what he meant by that remark. "I'm not wildly interested in self-immolation," he said, "so I'll just let my work stand for what I think about the press corps." But Hersh is a man who can't restrain his tongue, so he pressed on with an acidic commentary about the notorious March 6 White House press conference on the eve of Gulf War II, at which reporters hurled softball questions at Bush, and the president himself made a joke about how the list of people from whom he was calling questions had been scripted. Hersh compared the performance to a puppet show.

"It would have been very simple," Hersh said, "for one of the reporters to stand up and say, 'Thank you, Mr. President, but I want to give my question to Dana Milbank,'" the Washington Post correspondent whose skeptical reporting of the president has made him highly unpopular in the White House. "I think, within ten seconds, that would have restored some dignity to the press corps and let the world see what was happening," he said. "I have to tell you, I did things like that when I covered the Pentagon for The Associated Press thirty-five years ago — that long ago, my God. We have every right as journalists to stand up for ourselves."

http://www.cjr.org/issues/2003/4/hersh-sherman.asp