How are we supposed to take the media seriously?
A couple of unrelated items:
-Sorry for just getting to this, but CNN recently announced a new PR person to lead the News Group's PR and publicity efforts. OK, so what?
Well, this statement in the release struck me:
Goldberg joins CNN from Turner Broadcasting’s Cartoon Network, where as senior vice president of public relations she conceived and guided the implementation of a successful public relations and promotion plan advancing signature original programming, new network and online business ventures and the executive leadership team. Most recently she led positioning and promotion for Adult Swim, a block of animated programming for young adult audiences that has grown from a late-night cult following to lead its time period in ratings and delivery.
I fear I'm in danger of being overwhelmed by such gravitas.
This isn't to denigrate Ms. Goldberg but, well...imagine if the Bush team had hired someone of similar background as an assistant press secretary. Wouldn't the jokes come forth? Jokes like "Hey, is Space Ghost going to fill in for Larry King?"
-Slightly more seriously, the Investigative Reporters and Editors organization (IRE) is having their conference this year in Denver. Guess who is being honored as the keynote speaker?
Yep. The guy who was responsible for forged memos being reported as legitimate. The guy who put partisanship ahead of objectivity. The guy who thought the New York Times was "middle of the road." He is now being held up by IRE as Da Man.
And it's not like IRE is some backwater organization. There are some seriously big news names there. Names like the Chicago Tribune Foundation. US News and World Report. Scripps Howard. Bloomberg. Organizations that frankly should know better. Embarassed silence from them on the subject of Rather would be bad enough, but for them to sponsor Rather as a keynote is nothing short of ridiculous.
And again I ask...how can we take this media at all seriously?
Posted by John Tant at May 16, 2005 08:49 PM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/908
|# May 16th, 2005 9:11 PM Daddy|
|We can't. That's why we're taking their place. And doing it for free.
MSM hates the bloggers because we've proven that:
a) employees of the MSM are disposable;
b) their qualifications are no more special than those required to push a broom, and;
c) "sources tell us"--thier buzzword for "a little bird whispered in my ear", or "I heard from a friend who, heard it from a friend who, heard it from another"--is no longer valid substantiation.
Hell, I could just sit back and write what the voices in my head tell me to write--and that would come from more reliable sources.
|# May 17th, 2005 8:27 AM kris|
|I don't think the MSM hates bloggers. Blogs give the MSM more stories and sources to call on.
I do think reporters envy bloggers because bloggers are free to pursue both their own interests (they can write about what they want) and their own agenda without having to hide behind a cloak of objectivity.
Think about a sharp 25-year old reporter. He has to "pay his dues" writing and reporting on things he probably doesn't care about at all, all while making a very low salary. Then, you have bloggers around the same age following their muse, getting an audience, getting book deals and advertising, etc.
It's true that few people see mad blogging money, but I can understand how someone who really wants to write and report would be upset knowing that they could have pursued a more lucrative day job and still been able to scratch their writing itch - and scratch it more successfully.
|# May 17th, 2005 11:12 AM james|
|that first statement is great in that it points out that even news channels have to worry about marketing. the main criticism of foxnews (other than "it's biased') is that they "sensationalize the news just to get viewers!" maybe they do sensationalize, maybe they don't, but the "just to get viewers" part is thrown in as if that's somehow a bad thing. a tv network trying to attract viewers, sacre bleu!
i suppose this move will be rationalized by those people, tho - they'll say "well, fox ruined the impartial news reporting industry and now CNN has to market like this." or, there is always the old favorite "i get my news from npr."
speaking of rationalizations kris, the MSM certainly does hate bloggers. those in the industry have said exactly that dozens of times, and we've linked some of those stories. you want to see hate for "outsiders," just look at how they treat matt drudge.
|# May 17th, 2005 1:59 PM david|
|Not to bring Jon Stewart into this... but I looked through America: the Book, and its page on "how to fill news channel's day" is hilarious.
Daily Show does present good parody of media, I mean even the opening drum theme is hilarious. I've watched it since the Kilborn days.
They're clearly liberal, especially since his "this is all theater, dickhead" thing on crossfire, but I don't really take much more from it than I take from The Onion.
But yeah, on fox the other day they were making a giant story about some media savy teacher getting fired for lowering a kids grade for sleeping... No news is good news?
well, whatever, I tried to find that page from the book online but i found this DS clip bashing Cable News response to blogs;
|# May 17th, 2005 2:29 PM Daddy|
|James, promise me you'll never speak French again! |
|# May 18th, 2005 1:53 PM mbrlr|
|Look at Dan Rather's history and background and career. He may not be Walter Cronkite or David Brinklet, but he's a valued and professional newsman.
You prefer Fox? Good Lord.
|# May 18th, 2005 2:51 PM JohnTant|
|Valued if you don't care about a major story featuring obviously forged documents as a centerpiece, you mean.... |
|# May 18th, 2005 10:03 PM Daddy|
|Yeah. Not even BLACKS watch Dan Rather. |
|# May 18th, 2005 10:40 PM Laura|
|Dan Rather started and ended his career with the same old tired political pandering. I say ended because no matter what he does between now and when he retires or dies, most people caught on to what he's all about when he so obviously tried to throw a Presidential election.
A fair reading of RatherBiased.com illustrates this and more. The sad part is that he is typical of most reporters.
Face it, Democrats are the minority for a reason, and it's not a Karl Rove conspiricy. The press conference after the Newsweek treason pretty well summed it up. Most reporters are hard left. Most Americans are not.
|# May 19th, 2005 10:44 AM mbrlr|
|What the hell is the "not even blacks" bit about there, Daddy? I may sound like a typical liberal here, but just as a Southerner, that's offensive to me. Those on the right need very much to watch that, especially those on the right from the old Confederacy. Old sins still carry penance.
BTW, Dan Rather's entire career, his latest error notwithstanding, is honorable and good. He may not be Walter Cronkite, the best of the best, but he has been a journalist who has usually hit his mark.
And Newsweek treason? Please. They relied unfortunately on one source and didn't get confirmation, just no comment. That's not treason, just a journalistic error. There also is sufficient evidence of problems in Guantanamo to run with a story, just not with the specifics they had.
Look at the Bush vote in 2000. Minority? Look at the Bush vote in 2004? Not by much.
Wouldn't it be cool if I were really a Republican having fun here? This is a good site.
|# May 19th, 2005 10:54 AM kris|
|The "not even blacks" thing was a takeoff on Vicente Fox's remarks last week. |
|# May 19th, 2005 11:19 AM JohnTant|
|Then it's a real crying shame Dan Rather decided to sacrifice his "honorable and good" reputation with his memogate shenanigans.
And that's assuming the "honorable and good" reputation was ever there, given the ratings position of the Rather-led CBS Evening News for his tenure...
|# May 19th, 2005 4:30 PM Daddy|
|If you would've CLICKED ON THE FRIGGIN' LINK you would've known what I was talking about (refer to Kris' post).
The fact that you can't even be bothered to point and click demonstrates how unwilling you are to listen to another POV.
And I love that warning about what we "need to watch"....the only ones we need to be careful around are the ONES WHO ARE PREJUDICED AGAINST US!!
|# May 19th, 2005 10:02 PM Laura|
|That would be the same Walter Cronkite, who took great care to convince America that Tet was a loss instead of the military victory it was?
The same Walter Cronkite who advocates us giving up our sovereignty to the UN?
Yeah, I'm not at all surprised you admire him, mrblr.
|# December 1st, 2005 10:23 AM mbrlr|
|Tet was a loss because we got caught with out pants down and it pointed out that the war, contrary to the administration's words, wasn't going as well as we thought.
And he speaks of strengthening the UN as a means of eventually getting towards a world government that guarantees the freedoms of all in the way that ours are guaranteed. Strengthening doesn't mean giving up sovereignty in any way that Wilson didn't propose post WWI and that we didn't do post-WWII.