May 24, 2007
What? Media Day again?
Hey, we can't have a week go by without some
sort of Media Day post, so today is it and there's some real 'goodies'
to be enjoyed.
I simply have to begin with a portion of a recent David Broder column. His May 20 column in The Washington Post was about Tony Blair's farewell tour visit to D.C. Broder closed with the following:
"...History will record that
both of them saw the threat to the West posed by terrorism and
responded courageously. The wisdom of their policy and the conduct of
their governments are not likely to be judged as highly. "
As for the last line, what a fencesitter! Take a stand David. You are
writing a column, not reporting a news event. That's one of the issues
I have with Broder and a number of others in D.C. and New York--which
I'm sure causes them to toss-and-turn at night, yeah right. C'mon, at
least take a stand, heading into the fifth year of the quagmire in
Iraq. Cautious commentators like Broder should forsake the space
alloted them, especially one named the Dean of the D.C. press corps.
Of course, then there's the Ann Coulters, the Michelle Malkins and that
ilk who aren't known for being shrinking violets but there's a marked
difference. That bunch of yahoos, notice my not using the term
journalists, have never earned any credibility and if they are the
deans (deanesses?) of anything, it's political entertainment.
But returning to Broder, his next-to-last line is another corker. Who
the hell didn't see the threat of terrorism? Even Ernie down at the
local garage knew as much. And, as for courage, well, if telling lies
and 'sexing up' documentation in order to invade another country is
courage in Broder's mind, then it's simply past time for the Dean to
step aside. It takes no courage--more pathology than anything else--to
send others off to fight and die as proxy pawns in a cataclysm that
need not have happened.
Shame on you David Broder.
Now, you know you are doing a good job as a journalist when government
officials pettily employ their power in trying to get back at you and
your organization. The queen of such is El Presidente Bush but Robert
Gates also deserves a slap on his behind for such blatant cheesiness as
you'll read in the following:
McClatchy's D.C. Bureau Claims It's Barred From Defense Secretary Plane
Joe Strupp
Editor and Publisher
May 23, 2007
NEW YORK - Staffers at McClatchy's Washington, D.C.,
Bureau -- one of the few major news outlets skeptical of intelligence
reports during the run-up to the war in Iraq -- claims it is now being
punished for that coverage.
Bureau Chief John Walcott and current and former McClatchy Pentagon
correspondents say they have not been allowed on the Defense
Secretary's plane for at least three years, claiming the news company
is being retaliated against for its reporting.
"It is because our coverage of Iraq policy has been quite critical,"
Walcott told E&P. He added, "I think the idea of public officials
barring coverage by people they've decided they don't like is at best
unprofessional, at worst undemocratic and petty..."
...Jonathan Landay, a former Pentagon correspondent and one of the
co-authors of McClatchy's pre-war coverage, said he last traveled on
the plane with then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in 2004 to
Istanbul, Turkey, for a NATO economic summit. Since then, he says, none
of McClatchy's people have flown. "It is unusual because we get aboard
about two out of three trips [Secretary of State Condoleezza] Rice
makes," Landay said. "They have a different policy at the Pentagon. We
are definitely being discriminated against."
Go here for the complete article.
Shame, no make that continuing shame on the Pentagon power brokers,
those who vow to serve and protect but fail to add that job one for
them is serving and protecting their own butts. Some things never
change.
Eric Boehlert has a recent Media Matters column that yet again
slays--that is, if you are interested in factual information--the worn
out and thoroughly discredited canard about there being a leftwing
media bias. Yes, the one that even neo-con Bill Kristol admitted was made up:
Wash. Post still blind to liberal blogger successes
Eric Boehlert
Media Matters
May 15, 2007
The scandal surrounding the purge of United States attorneys
under President Bush shows no signs of abating. "I think there will be
a criminal case that will come out of this," John McKay, a dismissed
U.S. attorney, told reporters last week. "This is going to get worse,
not better."
The White House's sloppy, heavy-handed attempt to fire
federal prosecutors in order to make way for administration cronies has
morphed into arguably the most important Beltway news story of the
year. Thanks to his shifting and illogical explanations, Attorney
General Alberto Gonzales has become consumed by the story, and now Bush
aide Karl Rove also finds himself implicated.
The media man at the middle of the story is clearly Josh
Marshall, owner and founder of Talking Points Memo and its offshoot,
TPMmuckraker. Collecting string, working the phones, and relying on the
collective wisdom of his dedicated readers, Marshall and his small
staff helped piece together the scandal long before most mainstream
media outlets were even paying attention. Together, the two online
sites have unearthed scoop after scoop on the Gonzales saga. Marshall
has posted literally hundreds of items on the story he has become
synonymous with in recent months.
Do read the complete column here.
Finally, here's Rachel Smolkin from the American Journalism Review,
with a lengthy but intriguing article about Jon Stewart's "The Daily
Show" and what the mainstream media could learn from watching it:
What the Mainstream Media Can Learn from Jon Stewart
June/July Preview » No, not to be funny and snarky, but to be bold and to do a better job of cutting through the fog
Rachel Smolkin
AJR Managing Editor
When Hub Brown's students first told him they loved "The
Daily Show with Jon Stewart" and sometimes even relied on it for news,
he was, as any responsible journalism professor would be, appalled.
Now he's a "Daily Show" convert.
"There are days when I watch 'The Daily Show,' and I kind of
chuckle. There are days when I laugh out loud. There are days when I
stand up and point to the TV and say, 'You're damn right!'" says Brown,
chair of the communications department at Syracuse University's S.I.
Newhouse School of Public Communications and an associate professor of
broadcast journalism.
Brown, who had dismissed the faux news show as silly
riffing, got hooked during the early days of the war in Iraq, when he
felt most of the mainstream media were swallowing the administration's
spin rather than challenging it. Not "The Daily Show," which had no
qualms about second-guessing the nation's leaders. "The stock-in-trade
of 'The Daily Show' is hypocrisy, exposing hypocrisy. And nobody else
has the guts to do it," Brown says. "They really know how to
crystallize an issue on all sides, see the silliness everywhere."
Whether lampooning President Bush's disastrous Iraq policies
or mocking "real" reporters for their credulity, Stewart and his team
often seem to steer closer to the truth than traditional journalists.
The "Daily Show" satirizes spin, punctures pretense and belittles
bombast. When a video clip reveals a politician's backpedaling, verbal
contortions or mindless prattle, Stewart can state the
obvious--ridiculing such blather as it deserves to be ridiculed--or
remain silent but speak volumes merely by arching an eyebrow.
Stewart and his fake correspondents are freed from the
media's preoccupation with balance, the fixation with fairness. They
have no obligation to deliver the day's most important news, if that
news is too depressing, too complicated or too boring. Their sole
allegiance is to comedy.
Or, as "The Daily's Show's" Web site puts it: "One anchor,
five correspondents, zero credibility. If you're tired of the
stodginess of the evening newscasts, if you can't bear to sit through
the spinmeisters and shills on the 24-hour cable news networks, don't
miss The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, a nightly half-hour series
unburdened by objectivity, journalistic integrity or even accuracy."
That's funny. And obvious. But does that simple, facetious
statement capture a larger truth--one that may contain some lessons for
newspapers and networks struggling to hold on to fleeing readers,
viewers and advertisers in a tumultuous era of transition for old
media?
Go here for the remainder.
top
RSS feed
|