The mainstream media (MSM) sucks. I'm not talking, by the way, about the NON-mainstream media like The Nation, or even The Weekly Standard. And I'm not talking about the blogs; that's a subject for an entirely different discussion/rant. No, I'm talking about major newspapers like the Washington Post, Richmond Times-Dispatch, and of course - the worst of the worst - local and national TV news on the networks outside of the NewsHour on PBS. Why do I say that the MSM sucks? Let me count the ways.
1) Their reporters are lazy (with exceptions, of course) and don't do what it takes - shoe leather, guys! - to dig for the truth. I'm not just talking politics, either. I experienced this same situation over 17 years at the Energy Department, where I spoke to reporters about the Middle East and world oil markets all the time. I'd explain the underlying economics to them, but would they ever write about that? With a few exceptions, nope. Would they ever try to get to the bottom of reports that the Energy Department issued, instead of just reporting the headline like "Energy Department expects gas prices to go up?" Definitely nope. Would they ever study up enough on the subject to ask really tough questions? Absolutely nope. Lame.
2) For every story, there HAS to be an equal and opposite (aka, "balancing") story, even when there isn't really one. This is also known as "giving moral/factual equivalency to the morally/factually unequivalent," or striving to be "fair and balanced." For instance, if one side says that global warming IS occurring, and the other side says that it IS NOT occurring, the paper reports both sides, despite the fact that there's overwhelming (99%) evidence that it IS occurring due to human consumption of fossil fuels, and essentially no evidence (1%?) that this isn't the case. Or, if one side is making the case for evolution, arguably the most well-validated and well-evidenced scientific theory ever developed, the paper will commonly throw in a quote by one of those ignoramuses known as "intelligent design" advocates just for "balance." Lame.
3) The moronic "as seen on TV!" phenomenon. Now, this one isn't really the media's fault, but more peoples' in general. You probably know what I'm talking about if you've ever seen an ad in the newspaper that says, as if it makes a damn bit of difference in the world, "as seen on TV!" In other words, a story - or a product - has more credibility if it's on the boob tube/idiot box than if it's "only" in a newspaper. Now, I've noticed this in the past, and again over the past few months, that a story only becomes "real" if it appears on TV. Like, until Olbermann or Colbert or Chris Matthews says it on TV, it's not the truth? Like, if Sidarth had not captured George Allen's "macaca" moment on video, it would have been a minor story to the MSM? But, given actual video footage (like Howard Dean's "scream"), the MSM mindlessly goes to town with it. In other words, if you can't see it, it doesn't exist.
4) Reporters like to sit back and be spoonfed. This relates to point #1 (lazy!). Thus, the MSM will take whatever statement an "official" - campaign or otherwise - releases, and run with it. Oh, of course they'll get an opposing quote from the other campaign for "balance," but they will rarely look dig into what the campaigns are saying and examine them fairly, but critically. That would, of course, take work and require MSM reporters to - horror of horrors - actually do their jobs!
5) The "missing attractive young white girl" phenomenon. One of the most disappointing, even disgraceful, aspects of the MSM is its focus on the sensationalistic as opposed to the substantive. Thus, a missing, preferably attractive, preferably young, preferably white, preferably girl, gets hours and hours of press coverage. Another massacre in Iraq - or hijacking of the Constitution by the White House - gets, oh, maybe a minute or so (if that). A President lying to take us to war? Yawn. In contrast, a sex scandal? Oooh la la!! Someone supposedly used the "n" word? Oh yeah, big story! Someone has been a godawful Senator for 6 years on substantive/policy grounds? Boring, who cares! True, the job of the MSM is, in part, to make a profit by selling more papers (or TV viewers or whatever). But still, this is pathetic.
6) The "herd" or "pack" mentality. Most reporters won't report something until another member of their elite corps of J-school grads reports it first. Does the story appear in a non-elite publication (God forbid a blog by a regular citizen, even if that regular citizen knows a lot more about the subject than the MSM reporters), or one that isn't considered acceptable by the elite media, or one that is considered - GASP! - partisan? If so, forget it, even if it has just as much - or more - documentation as anything the MSM can come up with.
7) "Horse race" coverage. MSM reporters LOVE to cover the "horse race" of politics: who's up, who's down, what the latest poll reported, which candidate smiles more. Superficial crap, in other words. But serious, in-depth coverage of the candidates' positions on the issues, the candidates' records, the candidates' friends and financiers? Bo-ring! Or, perhaps just too much work (see #1 and #4 again)? Lame.
8) The bend-over-double-backwards phenomenon of the So-Called Liberal Media. Look, let's face it, most reporters vote Democratic. There's little doubt about it. But does that mean they can't do their jobs as professionals, covering the news accurately, without letting their personal biases into their stories? Well, apparently not, but in the opposite way that conservatives argue. What I see is a bunch of liberal reporters bending over double backwards to PROVE they are not biased. The result? The "liberal media" actually ends up being slanted towards the right wing, just so liberal reporter X doesn't get criticized by the goons and dittoheads for "bias." Congratulations, guys, you no longer are exhibiting LIBERAL bias, you're now overcompenasting and, as a result, exhibiting CONSERVATIVE bias. Wonderful.
9) Attention Deficit Disorder, aka "Short Attention Span Theater." That's right, there's almost no reporting on long-term issues, as opposed to the "car crash" or "scandal" of the day. And, of course, a story only can last a few days, or even hours, in our 24/7, media-overload, "hit-refresh," attention deficit world. That gives short shrift to anything EXCEPT the sensationalistic, the shallow, the superficial (no wonder people like George Allen win elections). And it does a terrible service our Democracy.
10) Arrogance and no accountability. The MSM thinks it is above it all, God's gift to humanity. There's rarely any accountability when it screws up, even when it screws up big time - e.g., its overall pathetic, lapdog reporting leading up to the US invasion of Iraq. To some extent, this is the flip side of the reality, which is that most MSM reporter are underpaid, underappreciated for the real risks they sometimes take (e.g., foreign war zone reporters), and under constant pressure to produce new "material" for the website and/or the physical paper. Still, the fact is that when the MSM makes a mistake, even a huge one, it rarely admits it, and even if it prints a correction several days later, it's on page Z-82 in 2-point font so nobody notices it. Lame. (Note: at least blogs act as checks and balances on each other!)
Anyway, there are my top 10 reasons why the MSM sucks. Do you have any others? Also, specifically, how well do you think the MSM covered the Virginia Senate race last year and has covered the 2008 Presidential race so far this year? On a scale of 1-10, where 1 is the worst and 10 is the best, I'd give it a 2 or 3 at best in both cases. How about you?
April 03, 2007
Recipe for disasterRichtimes Apr. 2--An article on homemade pet food on Page A11 yesterday reported that dogs and cats may be fed fruit. There are, however, fruits and foods that the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals says should not be fed to pets. These include grapes and raisins, which have been linked to kidney damage in dogs; avocado; chocolate; fatty foods; macadamia nuts; onions and onion powder; salt; garlic; and yeast dough.
If you have time, this MSM broadcast might just be worth watching...
Thanks!
Steve
Surely the guy will hit a single, double or triple eventually, and he may even strike out one of these times but, so far, he has been a consistent home run hitter.
Batter up!
Steve
Much of your concern, as I read it above, has more to do with actual analysis of the news and of events where Jimmy Olson, cub reporter for the Daily Planet, just isn't going to go. Television also sets the analysis side of news seperately from base reporting.
Even with that distinction between the two, there are subjective judgments made about what their viewing audience will buy, both figuratively and literally. Too much emphasis on one issue, a perceived bias outside the editorial section, or stories that go beyond the limited attention span of their intended audience (thus wasting money) just aren't going to go.
So, there's two challenges (although I apologize for constucting them rather hastily) that I see:
1. A big difference between news "reporting" and news "analysis" (I think you were having issues with the analysis side though you mentioned reporters a lot)
2. The MSM is not going to do anything that costs them customers. They sell what people buy or else they cease to exist.
Bottom line seems to be that the real problem isn't the MSM in a way since the reason you don't find much of what you'd like to see is that most Americans change channels or quit reading if it doesn't come in short, quick, easy to swallow pieces. Paraphrasing Pogo, the enemy of depth is us.
Today for most media companies/corporations its all about shareholders Return On Investment (ROI). If the balance sheet looks weak..its time to slash staff, cut costs etc. Unique beat reporting (and $$ staff) are replaced with homogenized syndicated McNews reporting. And lets not discount the impact that large advertisers may have on news content and coverage.
In the Fredericksburg Region, the local rag is Free Lance Star. It is a private independent newspaper (rare indeed) but it is unabashedly conservative in editorial/reporting content.
Free Lance Star editorial endorsement for Allen's re-election in 2006 dispelled any doubt:
"Finally, apart from any individual virtues he may possess, George Allen's warm body is needed to help Republicans maintain control of the Senate and install federal judges who will prevent and cure the disease of judicial activism that mocks elected government.If the GOP hangs onto the Senate on Nov. 7, it likely will be by a whisker. Friends of the Constitution can't afford to see Mr. Allen sheared off."
here:[http://fredericksbur...]
And with the Free Lance Stars recent reformatting (slimmer paper and more color photos) local content is pared down even more, and reads like a "crime blotter."
Knowing what we know: Alternative sources for news i.e. blogs/pod casts are the wave of the future. The future is NOW.
Senate Race (I assume we are talking about VA here) and Presidential race I agree are a poor 2-3
For the presidential race, I think it is way too early to be talking about this. But, since the MSM has decided to make it a major issue they should do much more analytical reporting instead of fluff stuff.
With 2007 after Labor day there should be more coverage. The Conenction newspapers actually do a fairly good job of covering this. The Washington Post is a joke with their coverage of Virginia races.
Obviously Blogs rock :-) However I would encourage everyone to be sure that they read at least one blog from the Left and the Right.
Since most of you on here are Democrats, may I suggest Bearing Drift, Mason Conservative and/or Bacons Rebellion as good places to go to if you do not already :-)
There is a nice mix of perspective commenting on Rod Dreher's blog.
There's a mix of articles on the science/religion tussles of the day at Beliefnet. http://www.beliefnet...
I have heard some people who never heard of Imus until last week who are sympathetic towards him. They think that Imus is the victim of a witch hunt. I must spend the next few minutes explaining how Imus has a well known track record of making bigoted remarks, on and off the air, that goes back to the 1980s. The context gives them a different picture of Imus.
But no one beats the Washington Post editorials when it comes forgetting the track record of Bush. Every new idea of Bush is seen as if the last six years of Bush's presidency have not happened. They will seriously consider the Bush administration warnings about Iran as if Bush & Co. never mislead them, gave them false information, or outright lied to them when justifying going to war with Iraq. Or they will seriously consider domestic policies like privatizing social security, his newest health care "fix", or why we should extend his tax cuts forgetting how most of his previous domestic policies have hurt the middle class and increased the deficit.
I kept reading in newspapers how Webb's only topic was the war in Iraq. Columns and news stories kept repeating this nonsense. They kept on repeating this until they were surprised when Webb talked about economic fairness in the OpEd that he published shortly after winning the race.
So it seems that none of the reporters or columnist ever bothered to check Webb's campaign web site and read his platform, even though these points were made public at least back in April of 2006.
Now I see that Obama is getting the same treatment. He officially has no ideas in the media, yet if one checks his website, he has 11 pages on different issues. Again, it seems that none of the reporters or columnists are bothering to check basic information about the candidates.
When Obama appeared on 60 minutes, the first things out of (I think it was Steve Croft) were rehashing his middle name, the sound-alike issues with his last name, and the school he went to (falsely said to be a Madrassa). This appalling slant is only the beginning.
Newspaper publishers continue to degrade their product by turning it into gossipy puffery as well as making newspapers little more than a propaganda outlet for the more extreme neo-con wing of one political party: entertainment over substantive reporting. This extends to the radio and television branches of the single corporate "news" behemoths. Fox News? Should be called henceforth "Republican Ministry of Propaganda."
Very good report, Lowell. Joe Klein in his recent book "Politics Lost" has a good outline of how the neocons have mastered the public information industry and now use it to their own purposes. He claims our political consultants and newspaper publishers consider the general public to be stupid. Really stupid.
There is very interesting puffery and gossip out there, or potentially out there, about truly interesting people. The light piece done by Gene Weingarten on Joshua Bell playing his Strad in the Metro was a wonderful example of entertainment journalism. Some of our high-visibility entertainers are also very intelligent people, and I'd love to see in-depth interviews with them.
I really do not need to see what passes for gossip in the Post along these lines: "Richard Gere was in town and dined at Tres Expensiv with so and so, and they had the veal medallions, and left a $100 tip."
Puffery wise, I'd even like to read an interview with one of the Hollywood stars that is into Scientology, or some other current New Age belief, and ask them what they're finding interesting or fulfilling about it. And the interviewer could do a "Part II" with someone who is investigating its cult aspects. Instead, we just get the same few people and the same few jokes.
Or how about Mia Farrow and what's up with her latest crusades? (She's heavily into Darfur.)
Or how about profiling a few scientists, instead of another story on some low brow athlete?
But these types of articles take real work.
On science, the internet is beating up the MSM because of a few dedicated science sites (offshoots of magazines) and some of the science bloggers who have real degrees. My favorite science blogger is PZ Myers at Pharyngula, who is profiled here:
http://oneblogaday.c...
I'm not even sure the Post has a science writer now that Guy Gugliotta is gone.
The Post's religion page seems like it's being written by 12 year olds who are still afraid of the monsters under the bed.
Oh, haha, the Post and sex. The newspaper that wouldn't print the word "penis" for a few years. A couple of years ago there was a side splitting attempt to use a non-slang synonym in a news story that happened to be very much about the "p" word.
You make a trenchant argument, Lowell.
In Russian the word "pravda" means "truth," and of course the old Soviet Communist Party newspaper was "Pravda." The word "izvestiya" means "news," and the official Soviet government newspaper was "Izvestiya." These authorized news outlets were "transmission belts" for official policy.
Twenty years before the Soviet Empire collapsed, I recall a young Russian professional grinning and telling me over a glass of vodka: "V 'Pravdye' nyet izvestii, i v 'Izvestii' nyet pravdi." In other words, "In 'The Truth' there is no news, and in 'The News' there is no truth."
Members of the Soviet intelligentsia knew very well that their official media were feeding them lies and spin, and they became adept at reading between the lines, noticing what was not reported, and seeking out alternative sources of information and entertainment, such as the BBC, VOA, Radio Free Europe, and bootleg cassette tapes of American and West European jazz and rock music. In my travels through the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe even in those days of heavy-handed state and Communist Party propaganda control, I was constantly impressed by the curiosity and intelligence of Russians and East Europeans, who generally knew much more about the U.S. and the West than American cultural and political elites knew about the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Remember in this context Gerald Ford's astonishing debate comment in 1976 about Poland being free?
The U.S. MSM have created a new kind of transmission belt. They emulate the role of "Pravda" and "Izvestiya" in relaying official policy, spin, and outright lies, but they add the diverting techniques of Fleet Street tabloid sensationalism to print and electronic media. The current MSM media monster may well be mostly the result of market forces: "The latest on Anna Nicole-Smith and the paternity test! Tonight on News 11!" "Imus Fired! Is Rosie next? Tonight on News 7!" If people can be induced to watch, advertisers can be induced to pay. More people can be induced to watch or read sensationalist hype than can be induced to watch or read well-researched hard news.
However, more than merely market forces are at work. The efforts of such media magnates as Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch have arguably been outright malevolent in intent. Fox News has become the official 'Pravda' of neocon Neverland. Under Fred Hiatt's editorial hand, the "Washington Post" has in recent years moved toward becoming the "Izvestiya' of Republican-run government. Even the "New York Times" served as a reliable transmission belt for neocon pretexts to invade Iraq, as with Judith Miller's unquestioning shilling of Administration leaks on alleged Iraqi WMD. Oh, and remember that the "New York Times" sat on its story regarding the Bush Administration's illegal warrantless wiretapping program for more than a year. The editors buckled to White House demands not to print the story before the 2004 election. Breaking the story before the election might have had an effect on the election! Bush might have lost! Heaven forbid!
So where can information-hungry Americans turn to find hard news and cogent, well-researched analysis, as well as entertainment offering different perspectives? Right here. The blogosphere. Places like Raising Kaine, Daily Kos, TPM, MyDD, Informed Comment, Salon, McClatchy, etc. We can also look to foreign news services, knowing full well that they will have their own characteristic slants and agendas. I make a point of checking BBC, Al Jazeera, Haaretz, Novosti, and Xinhua each day. We can sample foreign films, such as the brilliant "Pan's Labyrinth," "Lives of Others," and even "Babel."
And we can still watch "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" to find some really lucid news analysis, far more trenchant than any provided by the MSM.
Even the Soviet government and Communist Party never figured out how to exert complete control over the flow of information to Soviet citizens. Let's hope that the neocons and their enabling corporatist media fail here as well.
Today, Sam Rasoul officially tossed his hat in the ring for the U.S. House of Representatives 6th District. Right now, Republican Bob Goodlatte holds that seat.
Rasoul is seeking the Democratic nomination for the 2008 Congressional race. He made his announcement before a crowd of supporters at Roanoke College. Rasoul is an entrepreneur and a native of the Roanoke Valley.
He plans to focus his campaign on health care, education, and small business development. Rasoul says he hopes to beat the odds just like U.S. Senator Jim Webb did when he shut out incumbent George Allen.
Sam has a website up - sam2008.com and a link for volunteers and contributions via actblue.
First off, the Left and the Right hate MSM because both think it's too bias toward one or the other. Right-wingers swear the liberal media is out to destroy the Bush Administration and war effort (uncovering warrantless phone tapping, the Libby trial, Katrina, reporting on intercepting international bank transactions) and left-wingers consider MSM to be a Bush lapdog because we don't bash Bush and his administration officials enough on a daily basis. We must be doing something right.
So only bias media outlets are OK? I'd only read The Nation and publications with an obvious partisan or political agenda/bias for the commentary, not because it's a credible news source. Why would I read something simply so it'll buttress what I already believe?
Reporters and newspapers know more than they print but that darn thing called ethics and fear of libel suits provents us from printing what we can't prove. Officials may stay mum on things or drag their feet on FOIA requests. Reporters hate the Bush administration because it's the most secretive in a generation and only uses staged events and selective leaks to give out info.
Pretty much everything in your list screams "I only like MSM when they demean people I don't like, cover things the way I want them covered, when they attack Bush, when they're bias to the Left, cover things I like reading about." Readers care about different things. When it comes to community newspapers (not like WaPo and NY Times), some readers want to read just local stuff because they get national/world news from someplace else but others may not have Web access and don't watch 24-hour news channels so they want more national/international news in their local paper. Some readers like more human interest stories, others gobble up political stuff, others might just read the sports section and obituaries. WE CAN'T PLEASE EVERYBODY!!!
Your #7 is especially dumb considering your a blogger. We bloggers eat up whatever political news comes across MSM, press releases, speaking engagements, etc. If some presidential candidate sneezes, then that has to be a discussion thread.
The only thing on your list that I can agree with at all is #2, in part. I think that stems from the fact that most journalists are not science majors so we approach these subjects journalistically. Of course that doesn't mean we have to print everything we discover or report. If it's a lawsuit concerning global warming or intelligent design then of course both sides deserve equal bidding at the onset.
Everyone here should read Ellen Goodman's column last week about how blogs are poor journalism because it's more about speed than accuracy, ethics and accountability. Blogs are not journalism and bloggers are not journalists. You don't put an astronaut suit on a monkey and call Binkey an astronaut.
Most of us understand that journalists have pressure from deadlines, editors, and management. And most of you seem to be very dedicated at being fair.
And except for a tiny minority, most bloggers don't intend to replace professional journalists. Most probably want to replace political columnists, but not journalists. ;)
If we translate the list into positives, what we want is political coverage that is thorough, well researched, and thoughtful. We want to move away from sound bites and into more substantive topics. I am sure that you will agree that these are good goals.
*The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer
*Pretty much anything on PBS
*NPR for the most part
*CSPAN - indispensible
*Great magazines like The Economist, The Atlantic Monthly, The New Yorker, Foreign Affairs, and several others
*The BBC
*The New York Times for the most part, although they totally botched the leadup to the Iraq War
*Aspects of the Washington Post, although honestly I think that newspaper has been going downhill for years
*A few local papers like the Falls Church News-Press.
*Individual reporters who do a great job, such as John Burns of the New York Times, Dana Priest of the Washington Post, and many others.
So, there's a lot of good stuff out there, and a lot of good people. But overall, I stand by my criticisms of the "mainstream media" as a whole. I could do a similar list for the blogs, by the way...echo chambers, incivility, nastiness, etc. etc.
This is all well and good and many blogs serve a meritorious public function. But it's easy to get carried away with the virtuousness of bloggers and the inherent corruption of established news outlets.
In defense of blogs as original sources of reporting I think a decent case could be made for ePlurbiusmedia which frequently digs beyond the news stories (but is often still dependent upon major newspapers for its leads).
Also TPMmuckraker and TalkingPointsMemo have done a first rate job with the U.S. Attorneys story. On any given issue the TPMmuckraker may be more thorough. But in terms of breadth of coverage on a range of issues there isn't much comparison. I suspect Josh Marshall would agree.
In cable news this received over 3 weeks of non-stop coverage. The Washington Post ran with the story on its front page and had a couple minor items in columns over the next couple days and that was pretty much it.
I think the Washington Post is a few steps below where it was during the Ben Bradlee era in terms of coverage and especially in terms of its house editorials, but as far as national news sources go its still one of the better ones.
There's an interesting media study on the "three Iraq War myths" that was conducted by the The University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes. It found that Eighty percent of Fox News viewers believed at least one of three misconceptions about the war in Iraq--CBS wasn't much better at 71 percent compared with only 23 percent of the PBS/NPR audience.
As far as journalism goes NPR is definitely top tier, first rate information source.
...what about the living hell visited on three young men from the Duke lacrosse team? In all the coverage of the sexual assault charges that were finally dropped last week, very few have talked about how the media slimed them.That miscarriage of justice was aided, abetted and amplified by a media that unfairly turned the men into a national symbol of pampered, out-of-control student-athletes. Prosecutor Mike Nifong might lose his law license over the botched case, but the media never get disbarred.
[...]
The combination of race, crime, sports and a blue-chip university proved irresistible for a business that thrives on creating national soap operas. Did the indictments, as the team's lacrosse season was canceled, have to be covered? Of course. But media outlets framed the story as one of privilege vs. poverty, black vs. white, athletes above the law -- if, of course, it happened.
Television showed the homes of the players' parents. Newsweek put two of the defendants' mug shots on the cover. Sometimes the word "alleged" was dropped in the process. "I'm so glad they didn't miss a lacrosse game over a little thing like gang rape," Headline News host Nancy Grace said.
Utterly disgraceful, and another great example of why the MSM infuriates me to no end. By the way, saying that "blogs suck too" isn't much of a defense...more like changing the subject. Whether or not blogs suck is a perfectly valid subject, but the issue here is the mainstream, corporate, TV and print media. Over and over again, they do "if it bleeds it leads," the "missing white girl" thing, and polarizing/sensationalizing of stories like the Duke Lacross case. Appalling.
I think in very general terms there is an ounce of truth to the "MSM" meme in reference to corporate media.
Although in practical terms I think when it is suggested that Network news, Cable News, and Print news, which could further be subdivided into national newspapers, local newspapers, which are part of larger news groups, and wire services all behave the same and are all subject to the same vices would be a gross overstatement.
I do not believe that all 10 of these vices apply equally--or even at all--to all of the MSM news sources.
In terms of the Virginia Senate race I think there may be some grounds for sour grapes about the coverage during the primary simply because there wasn't much of any.
However, during the general election I thought the coverage was OK. I followed the reporting in the Roanoke Times and Virginia Pilot closely and thought they did a good job with both there news and editorial coverage. I don't see them as being subject to any of the 10 vices above. Yet they are part of a national conglomerate Landmark Communications. They would fall under the broad rubric of the "MSM" large corporately owned media.