Showing posts with label Media Fail. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media Fail. Show all posts
Monday, September 16, 2013
Sunday, September 1, 2013
Jake Tapper explains how he conducts an interview:
In my world the people are starving for reliable information on policy. The only thing they're "looking down their nose at" is the media fixation on horserace reporting, false balance and click-baiting. Which sadly, is now the norm in the news business.
[Big thanks to Tengrain for kindly linking in at Mike's Blog Roundup. Tengrain also blogs at of Mock, Paper, Scissors and Dependable Renegade. If you're not reading both, well, you should be.]
Most interviews that I do are not super aggressive. They can’t be, and they shouldn’t be; that would get pretty tiresome. So when there’s an interview that’s tough or a question that’s tough, it’s something that raises eyebrows. It’s not easy to do that in the White House briefing room, at a press conference. That’s never easy. It’s not fun. Because as humans we are built to try to avoid conflict. Society constantly looks down its nose at conflict, even if the media doesn’t. And it’s not a comfortable feeling. It’s absolutely nerve-racking. It’s much easier to be chummy with people in power. It’s much easier to ask softball questions, to not upset the apple cart. And that’s why most people, including me, don’t spend all of their time asking tough questions. But there are times when they are called for, and I think definitely they’re needed in politics, in political journalism.I actually like Jake. I cut him a lot more slack than most people do because I do think within the parameters of what passes for TV journalism today, he's more willing than most to challenge the GOP perfidy at least some of the time. But he's wrong about this. Aggressive interviews are not tiresome unless they're based on phony memes instead of facts. The traditional mission of the journalist was to engage in conflict. Afflict the comfortable and all that. When he says society "looks down its nose at conflict" he's talking about society inside the Beltway. He's talking about losing access to the insiders by not being invited to the important soirees. Not seeing that as a concern outside the DC bubble.
In my world the people are starving for reliable information on policy. The only thing they're "looking down their nose at" is the media fixation on horserace reporting, false balance and click-baiting. Which sadly, is now the norm in the news business.
[Big thanks to Tengrain for kindly linking in at Mike's Blog Roundup. Tengrain also blogs at of Mock, Paper, Scissors and Dependable Renegade. If you're not reading both, well, you should be.]
Saturday, August 17, 2013
Where I come from we call it lying, but as President Obama points out, it's perfectly clear the GOPers are trying to confuse the public about the benefits of Obamacare. Of course, they wouldn't have had so much success in doing so if our "liberal media" was willing to point out the inaccuracies (if they need a polite word) instead of simply acting as stenographers for the GOP's false claims. Our insider media is perfectly willing to analyze the political implications (and subsequent benefits of lying) but only Obama is willing to point out the obvious adverse consequences of the GOP's perfidy.
A lot of Republicans seem to believe that if they can gum up the works and make this law fail, they'll somehow be sticking it to me. But they'd just be sticking it to you.Fortunately for America, albeit unfortunately for the Republican party, the GOP propaganda is not working like it used to. Leaping in where the media fears to tread, the people are calling the Republicans liars to their faces. Far cry from the summer of the angry mob in 2009. To paraphrase Charlie Pierce, at least this summer they're hollering at the right people. So there's that.
Thursday, August 8, 2013
The only reason I'm mentioning this nothingburger of an anti-Obama protest in Arizona is because it's a perfect illustration of how click-bait journalism is destroying the former profession of news gathering. The deceptive headline at the link screams -- "Hundreds protest Obama" -- but not all of them were crackpots singing "Bye, Bye, Black Sheep" or hollering about impeaching the 47% Negro. Which by the way, is not at all racist because somebody had a Mexican grandson there.
And "hundreds" would be stretching the description of the turnout. The TV cameramen are good at framing the shots to make the crowd look bigger, but Steve M finds video from the anti-Obama group, that isn't as skillfully skewed.
By the end there may have been a couple hundred or so people, but many of them were there to protest on behalf of their pet causes, (like killing the XL pipeline), and you could hear the competeing cheers for Obama across the street while the crackpots were booing right in front of their little videographer.
This non-story was picked up by all the local affiliates of the national networks. So okay, it's August and there no other "news" to cover, but what really rankles is if this had been a pro-Obama rally of 10K, you could bet money none of the big media would have even mentioned it.
And "hundreds" would be stretching the description of the turnout. The TV cameramen are good at framing the shots to make the crowd look bigger, but Steve M finds video from the anti-Obama group, that isn't as skillfully skewed.
By the end there may have been a couple hundred or so people, but many of them were there to protest on behalf of their pet causes, (like killing the XL pipeline), and you could hear the competeing cheers for Obama across the street while the crackpots were booing right in front of their little videographer.
This non-story was picked up by all the local affiliates of the national networks. So okay, it's August and there no other "news" to cover, but what really rankles is if this had been a pro-Obama rally of 10K, you could bet money none of the big media would have even mentioned it.
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
I stopped reading (and especially linking to) Politifact years ago. After they gave the Dems "Lie of the Year" for something that was absolutely true, I was hoping the very serious important people would do the same. They didn't but maybe today's Politifact idiocy will do the trick. Steve Benen catches us up:
Or the car might crash into a tree in which case it would certainly stop accelerating. Politifact started out with a good idea and for a while they did a good job. But it's been long since they realized all the biggest lies were coming from one side so they invented false balance so as to look like a neutral observer. Because we all know the truth has a liberal bias.
Cantor said that the federal deficit is "growing." Annual federal deficits are not growing right now, and they are not projected to grow through 2015, a point at which the deficit will have shrunk by three-quarters since 2009. By this standard, Cantor is wrong. However, unless policies are changed, deficits are projected to grow again in 2016 and beyond, according to the CBO. On balance, we rate his claim Half True.In other words, Cantor's bogus claim might be true someday if the planets align perfectly and nothing ever changes in the whole world from this hot minute. As Steve points out, that's sort of like saying: Imagine we're driving down the highway in a car and I step on the accelerator. I then assure you, "Don't worry, the car is slowing down," despite the fact that the car is speeding up. PolitiFact would apparently say my claim is "half true" because sometime soon, the car will probably decelerate.
Or the car might crash into a tree in which case it would certainly stop accelerating. Politifact started out with a good idea and for a while they did a good job. But it's been long since they realized all the biggest lies were coming from one side so they invented false balance so as to look like a neutral observer. Because we all know the truth has a liberal bias.
Friday, August 2, 2013
Alec MacGillis at TNR finds the charts on media scandal mongering on the IRS nontroversy. This is how truthiness becomes gospel among the many victims of Obama Derangement Syndrome.
Click bait "journalism" is going to destroy this country. They shouldn't even be allowed to call themselves news orgs anymore.
Addendum: Steve Benen adds:
Click bait "journalism" is going to destroy this country. They shouldn't even be allowed to call themselves news orgs anymore.
Addendum: Steve Benen adds:
If the political world took a keen interest in this controversy when it first came to public light, then moved on when there were no new developments, it'd be fairly routine. But that's not quite the case here -- rather, the IRS story broke, news organizations pounced, and then proceeded to ignore new developments that undermined the legitimacy of the story itself.And worse, never having admitted the "scandal" was a nothingburger, the media will continue to refer to it as one in a string of scandals, as if the false allegations by the GOP should have been afforded any credibility whatsoever. The real scandal -- that Republicans invented this fakery -- will never be told by our so called liberal media.
Outlets didn't move on when nothing happened; outlets instead made a conscious decision not to report when all kinds of things happened -- things that made the story itself appear baseless.
In other words, in this case, the media only cared about the allegations from Republicans, not the evidence that proved those allegations false. The political world was obsessed for weeks with the questions, then found the answers boring and not worth sharing with the public.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Under the heading, "What's wrong with everything," this was posted by the political editor of Buzzfeed as a "reminder" to his fellow journos.
Click over to read the responses. It's a case study in bored Beltway insiderism. The journos are all yeah, covering the effects of policy is such a loser. Which may well be true, but that's because these too cool to care journos are reporting the politics instead of the policy. The cruel effects of the GOP's massacre of food assistance are going to affect 47 million people, most of whom are likely still blissfully unaware it's happening because these guys can't be bothered to inform the public. Not enough clicks in it.
Meanwhile, Max Fisher posts the best response.
Click over to read the responses. It's a case study in bored Beltway insiderism. The journos are all yeah, covering the effects of policy is such a loser. Which may well be true, but that's because these too cool to care journos are reporting the politics instead of the policy. The cruel effects of the GOP's massacre of food assistance are going to affect 47 million people, most of whom are likely still blissfully unaware it's happening because these guys can't be bothered to inform the public. Not enough clicks in it.
Meanwhile, Max Fisher posts the best response.
Monday, July 8, 2013
A new Gallup survey tells us television is still America's primary news source for current events (55%), leading the Internet, at 21%. Even worse, Fox News and CNN are the market leaders both in viewers and click-bait sensationalism. Accuracy in reporting has never been part of the Fox business model and at this point it's little more than a quaint relic of the past at CNN.
On a related note, MoJo runs the numbers to find just how large a goldmine Citizens United spending has been for BigMedia. Which is leading to new rounds of consolidation.
And it's not just CBS that's riding high thanks to political ad spending. TV stations in battleground states are magnets for ad spending, and they're driving a new wave of consolidation in the broadcast industry, leaving a handful of big media companies well-positioned to reap hundreds of millions during the 2014 midterm elections and, especially, the 2016 presidential race. Just in the past month, the Gannett company bought 20 TV stations for $1.5 billion, and the Tribune Company inked a $2.7 billion deal for 19 stations. Those deals included stations in battleground states.Meanwhile, SuperPACs ads keep getting slicker and less easy to distinguish from the programming, especially since the disclosure requirements are so dismally inadequate. There are no incentives to get the information right. The big money is in misinformation. This is a problem.
Friday, June 21, 2013
Which is more than can be said for Yahoo!'s hit piece on the PressSec. Sure slow news cycles breed some lame non-stories to feed the insatiable maw of the 24/7 media beast, but this interactive compilation of Carney's verbal tics is dumber than the most inane BuzzFeed list ever posted.
I'm down with Wonkette's critque. The interactive is pretty much just an excuse for unjustified mockery. It serves no useful informational purpose. A comparison between former PressSec "evasions" might have had some value, but not much. Every PressSec does this. It's in the job description. I would have found an interactive of how times the media elite asked the same damn question in one briefing after Carney has already answered it the first time much more enlightening.
I imagine this is supposed to taken as lighthearted mockery meant to while away the summer doldrums but there's an underlying meaness to these pieces that's vaguely disturbing. I watch these journos on the twitter, ever alert for the "phrase of the day" they can turn into a snark competition. What you rarely see is much focus on the substance of what Carney, or Obama, say about the policy.
The snark barely masks the media's dislike of this administration. It's hard not to think the media hates them because they're too good at their jobs. Neither Obama nor Carney often deliver easy soundbytes that can be quickly transformed into a click-baiting fauxtroversy. Makes the journos work harder. Which is not to say journos are lazy but they do love an easy narrative.
I'm down with Wonkette's critque. The interactive is pretty much just an excuse for unjustified mockery. It serves no useful informational purpose. A comparison between former PressSec "evasions" might have had some value, but not much. Every PressSec does this. It's in the job description. I would have found an interactive of how times the media elite asked the same damn question in one briefing after Carney has already answered it the first time much more enlightening.
I imagine this is supposed to taken as lighthearted mockery meant to while away the summer doldrums but there's an underlying meaness to these pieces that's vaguely disturbing. I watch these journos on the twitter, ever alert for the "phrase of the day" they can turn into a snark competition. What you rarely see is much focus on the substance of what Carney, or Obama, say about the policy.
The snark barely masks the media's dislike of this administration. It's hard not to think the media hates them because they're too good at their jobs. Neither Obama nor Carney often deliver easy soundbytes that can be quickly transformed into a click-baiting fauxtroversy. Makes the journos work harder. Which is not to say journos are lazy but they do love an easy narrative.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
New Republic posts an interview with Politico's head honchos John F. Harris and Jim VandeHei that illuminates their business model. It's an interesting piece if you have a high tolerance for smug pricks, but this is the graf that explains why Charlie Pierce dubbed their rag, "Tiger Beat on the Potomac."
I could mock this at great length but, as usual, Charlie Pierce's scathing takedown of the gruesome twosome already says it all.
JH: We have an obligation to be interesting. We don’t think of ourselves as the electric company or the water company: Well, we have a responsibility ...”2 That was a mindset in a previous generation of journalists. That mindset might have even been legitimate. There really were only a handful of establishments reporting on this stuff and making judgments on its relative importance. People were looking to editors to say, “Tell me what I should think about.” We are in an era where everyone is his or her own editor and will decide what they care about. If we are boring, ... there is no market for that. Nor is there a public calling to be boring.In other words, informing the public isn't their job. Informing the public with actual facts presented in context is a loser's game. Won't get a Drudge link with real news. All the money is in useless insider gossip and creating fake controversies. For this crapola we give them special protections under rule of law. And they expect a Pulitzer for it too, which isn't as unlikely as it should be since I think one of them sits on the damn prize committee.
I could mock this at great length but, as usual, Charlie Pierce's scathing takedown of the gruesome twosome already says it all.
Monday, June 17, 2013
Been processing this story for a while now and reviewing the sum of Snowden's leaks so far. The more Snowden talks the less credible he seems, particularly when he has to revise the dramatic details of his life as Edward Snowden, international spy. Looking at his language carefully, he's not so much telling us what the government is doing. He's describing what he can do, as a paid outside agent of the government. Or at least he could have done if he had stayed undercover. Meanwhile as Snowden makes the story about himself, an important point is being lost. Namely, Snowden is not the only young ambitious superhacker in the ranks of possibly hundreds of thousands of private contract workers. Guessing a not small number would be tempted to sell intel for money rather than expose it as an act of social conscience or in a bid for internet fame.
Also as important as the civil rights violations within the surveillance state are, it's equally scandalous that our government is spending billions subcontracting our national intelligence to private, for profit corporations. I doubt public service is the first priority of these megacorps who hire young hackers with sporadic work histories and no academic credentials to oversee these confidential programs. So when Snowden tells you "the government" is spying on you what he really means is some 29 year old hacker like himself is really the one spying and they don't actually work for the government directly. The potential for some rogue IT kid to conduct a personal vendetta seems rather large to me. Maybe we could talk about that too.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
So last night CNet's Declan McCullugh posted a story with the red siren hed, "NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants — National Security Agency." You'll be shocked to learn, by this morning Declan's sloppy click-baiting turned out to be pretty much false, apparently based on his misinterpretation of a stray comment by Congressman Jerrold Nadler at some hearing.
Congressman Nadler corrected the misreporting today. [Transcript of the full convo at the link.] As The Atlantic notes in their piece the NSA click-baiting is even bigger than just this one point.
The worst part is Declan's false info is still spreading. The twitter tells me his inaccurate version has 54K likes on Facebook and it's still spreading. Boing Boing picked it up this afternoon. And while Declan did correct some of the disinfo in the piece, he merely changed the headline slightly, disguising but not really refuting his original sensational claims, added a bit to the body of the piece, and then buried his admission of guilt at the very end of the post.
This is a big problem because, the majority of readers don't get past the headline and a very few make it all to the end of any given post of any length. All that gets passed through the social media is the sensational -- and false -- claims. Great for generating hysteria. Horrible for finding solutions to the surveillance state.
Congressman Nadler corrected the misreporting today. [Transcript of the full convo at the link.] As The Atlantic notes in their piece the NSA click-baiting is even bigger than just this one point.
Seeing the full conversation reveals a slightly different picture than McCullugh was trying push forward. The FBI director testified that PRISM mostly works exactly like we've been told in the weeks since this scandal broke. An unclassified document obtained by Reuters claimed NSA officials looked at raw information for fewer than 300 telephone numbers in 2012. On Saturday, the Associated Press reported any domestic phone information collected by PRISM is stored in a secure server that requires a special warrant to access, supporting Mueller's testimony.None of this is to say we should take the government's word for anything without a speck of skepticism either, but's it equally clear we can no longer trust the media to give us the real story either. As long as boosting traffic is the prime objective of the new journalistic order, we are mostly without reliable sources for actual facts.
The worst part is Declan's false info is still spreading. The twitter tells me his inaccurate version has 54K likes on Facebook and it's still spreading. Boing Boing picked it up this afternoon. And while Declan did correct some of the disinfo in the piece, he merely changed the headline slightly, disguising but not really refuting his original sensational claims, added a bit to the body of the piece, and then buried his admission of guilt at the very end of the post.
This is a big problem because, the majority of readers don't get past the headline and a very few make it all to the end of any given post of any length. All that gets passed through the social media is the sensational -- and false -- claims. Great for generating hysteria. Horrible for finding solutions to the surveillance state.
Monday, June 10, 2013
So I'm still catching up the Snowden story. It's not that easy because it seems the facts keep changing and there's a metric ton of noise with everybody fighting about whether this kid is a hero or a traitor. Jeffrey Toobin doesn't think Snowden is a hero. He thinks he's " a grandiose narcissist." At this point, I tend to agree with that. It's not that I don't appreciate the guy restarting the debate about domestic surveillance, but I'm finding Snowden vaguely sociopathic for a number of reasons.
A lot of fighting appears to be based on incomplete information. Media has been flooding the zone with a grand rush to be first with any hot rumor they can get their hands on. Then stealthily correcting the record after the rumors turn out to be bogus.
Ed Bott continues to track the ever changing stories being quietly corrected. Guessing few people caught this correcton on the WaPo story.
A lot of fighting appears to be based on incomplete information. Media has been flooding the zone with a grand rush to be first with any hot rumor they can get their hands on. Then stealthily correcting the record after the rumors turn out to be bogus.
Ed Bott continues to track the ever changing stories being quietly corrected. Guessing few people caught this correcton on the WaPo story.
Update June 10: And one more thing. In its original story, the Post calls the source of the documents "a career intelligence officer" who provided these materials "in order to expose what he believes to be a gross intrusion on privacy." We now know that the source was Edward Snowden, who was not an intelligence officer but an "infrastructure analyst" who had been in his current position with an external contractor for only three months. The "career intelligence officer" description seems exaggerated.Seems exaggerated? How about entirely made up to point of near delusional? Suggests to me Snowden never had the authority to "wiretap the President" as he initially claimed. Seems to be a correction that big deserves a headline, but I haven't seen one yet. This is why I don't trust the media to get the story right anymore than I trust government claims of national security necessity. As Ed put it:
In short, one of the great journalistic institutions of the 20th Century is now engaged in outright click-baiting, following the same “publish first, fact-check later” rules as its newer online competitors.Click-bait reporting is the new business model of the news biz. It's killing what's left of the profession of journalism and it's at the root of the ruination of civil society.
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Another big AP scoop. Administration appointees maintain "secret email addresses" if by secret you mean a separate unpublished intra-office address they use to conduct agency business. AP is not buying the reasoning that they do this to avoid having to filter out extraneous public contacts from their accounts while they engaged in critical communications required to do their job. Because you know, nobody else does that, anywhere. Not ever. And never have before. If by never you forget to mention it was a common practice for years in the Bush administration.
Leaving aside that omission, do you know anybody know who doesn't have at least two accounts, even when they're not highly visible public figures? I don't. Furthermore, AP has no evidence of any misconduct involved in the use of the private addys. They aren't in widespread use. In fact AP found only a few of the employees have them at all. They appear to be mainly confined to the agency heads. There's no evidence they're being used to circumvent public records laws. All the AP has here is allegations from "Republicans in Congress" and the "Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington think tank." Plus their own gut feeling that the very existence of such accounts "drive perceptions that government officials are trying to hide actions or decisions."
I find that rather hilarious, in a sardonic laugh kind of way. In fact, I seem to remember Bush administration White House staff using effectively illegal accounts with the practical result of circumventing public records laws. And then somehow managed to "lose" millions of them having to do with major policy decisions and deceptions of the Bush tenure. Many important electronic records were never recovered. What I don't remember is any great outcry from AP demanding accountability then.
But leaving history behind, the AP did manage to get the private address for HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. They were asked not to publish it, but they decided to ignore that request "because the secretary is a high-ranking civil servant who oversees not only major agencies like the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services but also the implementation of Obama's signature health care law." I imagine having her private address inundated with crazed emails from crackpots every time Beck or Malkin or whoever sic their hordes of flying monkeys on her won't be interfering with her ability to conduct the business of the people at all. So great journalism in service of the public interest with that bold revelation guys.
What's most amusing about this little outrage is I see these journos bitch all day long on the twitter about having to deal with angry trolls who blast them with unwanted communications. Willing to bet they all have private addresses as well that they use to conduct their work. Maybe in the interests of media transparency, they'd like to give those out to the public... I didn't think so.
Leaving aside that omission, do you know anybody know who doesn't have at least two accounts, even when they're not highly visible public figures? I don't. Furthermore, AP has no evidence of any misconduct involved in the use of the private addys. They aren't in widespread use. In fact AP found only a few of the employees have them at all. They appear to be mainly confined to the agency heads. There's no evidence they're being used to circumvent public records laws. All the AP has here is allegations from "Republicans in Congress" and the "Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington think tank." Plus their own gut feeling that the very existence of such accounts "drive perceptions that government officials are trying to hide actions or decisions."
I find that rather hilarious, in a sardonic laugh kind of way. In fact, I seem to remember Bush administration White House staff using effectively illegal accounts with the practical result of circumventing public records laws. And then somehow managed to "lose" millions of them having to do with major policy decisions and deceptions of the Bush tenure. Many important electronic records were never recovered. What I don't remember is any great outcry from AP demanding accountability then.
But leaving history behind, the AP did manage to get the private address for HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. They were asked not to publish it, but they decided to ignore that request "because the secretary is a high-ranking civil servant who oversees not only major agencies like the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services but also the implementation of Obama's signature health care law." I imagine having her private address inundated with crazed emails from crackpots every time Beck or Malkin or whoever sic their hordes of flying monkeys on her won't be interfering with her ability to conduct the business of the people at all. So great journalism in service of the public interest with that bold revelation guys.
What's most amusing about this little outrage is I see these journos bitch all day long on the twitter about having to deal with angry trolls who blast them with unwanted communications. Willing to bet they all have private addresses as well that they use to conduct their work. Maybe in the interests of media transparency, they'd like to give those out to the public... I didn't think so.
Sunday, June 2, 2013
This is why we have an uninformed electorate. The Hill (no I'm not linking to their stenography) dutifully transcribes Issa's crackpot allegations about the his latest time wasting attempts to make a scandal out of the IRS asking GOP front groups to prove they're not really political PACs in disguise. They dutifully quote Issa's blathering:
Of course, the traffic baiting lede on all the BigMedia pieces is all about Issa calling the PressSec Jay Carney a paid liar. The only appropriate response to that comes from the twitter:
"The indication is they were being directly ordered from Washington," Issa said, citing interviews with IRS workers in Cincinnati.Get that. Once again, after having failed to find any testimony to prove the IRS erred in anything other using some lame shortcut algorithums to flag applications, this time for sure Issa claims he has the smoking gun. What The Hill fails to mention is in that very interview Candy Crowley proved the only smoke here is what Issa is blowing out of his ass. It's left to Think Progress to bring the context to Issa's false allegations.
"This is a problem that was coordinated, in all likelihood, right out of Washington headquarters. We have subpoenaed documents that would support that," Issa said.
“You don’t have that direct link,” Crowley continued. “You have the frontline agents going, yeah, we figured it was from Washington or I believe it was, but as of yet you don’t have that definitive, yeah, this guy called me and said, people, go look for tea party and patriot applications.” Issa claimed his investigation would eventually turn up direct evidence of his charges and described White House Press Secretary Jay Carney as a “paid liar” for claiming that Washington officials did not direct IRS agents.Neither do our BigMedia insiders mention that the Inspector General’s report clearly stated, "...the criteria were not influenced by any individual or organization outside the IRS.”
Of course, the traffic baiting lede on all the BigMedia pieces is all about Issa calling the PressSec Jay Carney a paid liar. The only appropriate response to that comes from the twitter:
David Plouffe: Strong words from Mr Grand Theft Auto and suspected arsonist/insurance swindler.A responsible media would be challenging Issa's loose grip on reality instead of promoting his blithering accusations as worthy of consideration. But scandal raises the ratings. Fact based reporting not so much. Besides stenography is easy. Checking facts is so much work.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
I really hate it when I'm at odds with journalists I like and respect, (there's more of them than you might think), about the leak investigations. In the latest twist in the storyline, most of the major media heads are refusing to meet off the record with AG Holder to discuss the matter. I'm sorry to have to say this ends up looking like they care more about pumping up a so-called scandal than finding a solution to the problem.
It's too weird to find myself in agreement with the WaPo and Politico who so far are the only major news orgs willing to say wait a minute, we routinely have off-the-record conversations with the government, so we're going to the meeting. The rest of them are coming off as entirely off base. Or in other words, as this tweet points out:
Meanwhile, out in the real world, outside of the insider bubble, not seeing any sympathy for the solipsism. Media might want to take notice:
@BrettLoGiurato: This is perhaps the clearest indication about how the public feels about AP, Fox leak investigations:
Click through on that link to read the responses. My personal favorite being, "Sheesh. Go after the leaker, not the journo."
Funny. Last I looked, no journos were being hauled into court for national security reporters "standard operating practices." The only ones paying the price are the inside sources they convinced to breach their contractual agreements and the law simply for a "scoop" that didn't even expose any government wrongdoing. Seems to me the sources are the real victims here.
All that being said, I'm not without empathy for the media in this. I understand the pressure to produce traffic. What worries me is when inside sources are squandered for stories that don't expose government misconduct for short term gain, then when real misconduct occurs, the sources will be too afraid to come foreward. Not seeing how that serves anyone in the long run.
It's too weird to find myself in agreement with the WaPo and Politico who so far are the only major news orgs willing to say wait a minute, we routinely have off-the-record conversations with the government, so we're going to the meeting. The rest of them are coming off as entirely off base. Or in other words, as this tweet points out:
@AlecMacGillis: Exactly. The piousness on this is a bit much. RT @jackshafer: News organizations that go off the record all the time suddenly get picky.Hells bells. It's supposed to a gripe session, not a fucking press conference. It's not like they're going to be writing policy or making some secret pact. And frankly, I don't blame Holder for wanting it off the record. Who can't predict how that would go. They would spend an hour or two discussing the problem and all that would be reported is some out of context, off the cuff remark to draw traffic in the slow news cycle of summer.
Meanwhile, out in the real world, outside of the insider bubble, not seeing any sympathy for the solipsism. Media might want to take notice:
@BrettLoGiurato: This is perhaps the clearest indication about how the public feels about AP, Fox leak investigations:
Click through on that link to read the responses. My personal favorite being, "Sheesh. Go after the leaker, not the journo."
Funny. Last I looked, no journos were being hauled into court for national security reporters "standard operating practices." The only ones paying the price are the inside sources they convinced to breach their contractual agreements and the law simply for a "scoop" that didn't even expose any government wrongdoing. Seems to me the sources are the real victims here.
All that being said, I'm not without empathy for the media in this. I understand the pressure to produce traffic. What worries me is when inside sources are squandered for stories that don't expose government misconduct for short term gain, then when real misconduct occurs, the sources will be too afraid to come foreward. Not seeing how that serves anyone in the long run.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
No need to read the Politico piece, it only states the obvious. Everybody knows the crackpot cons have taken control of the House and Boehner is powerless to stop them. Charlie's takedown of Tiger Beat on the Potomac gets to heart of the dysfunction.
Meanwhile, our serious news orgs are posting such important stories as, Senate GOP feels jilted after being wined and dined by Obama, After 2008, who would Hillary Clinton hire?, and I've seen at least a half dozen stories about how Obama failed to win a teddy bear at an arcade on the Jersey Shore.
This remains the only story worth covering about how our government is operating — or, more accurately, failing to operate — in Washington, and it remains a story that TBOTP, among others, have failed dismally to cover. It is not an unfair summation of that passage to conclude that "most young conservatives" who have been elected to serve in one of the three branches of government believe their job once elected is not...to...govern.The situation in the states is a bit different and even more dangerous. The crackpot cons have taken over entire state governments and they're not so much not governing, as they are dismantling every social assistance program, privatizing every public common and passing out the "savings" in cash to their favored cronies. And on the side, they're also legislating their religious beliefs into local law. To paraphrase the old Pogo bit: we looked for the tyrants, and found they were the power mad GOP.
I don't believe there ever has been a time like this in our history. We have had periods of severe political polarization before, but those were periods in which the government was polarized because of conflicting ideas of what the national government should do. Right now, we have a polarization based on the fact that an uncontrollable faction of one of our two political parties — a faction with its own sources of money and power that exist outside conventional political accountability — has decided that the only thing that the national government should do is nothing, a faction that is perfectly situated to make that at least part of a political reality, and a faction that is growing even faster out in the states than it is in Washington.
Meanwhile, our serious news orgs are posting such important stories as, Senate GOP feels jilted after being wined and dined by Obama, After 2008, who would Hillary Clinton hire?, and I've seen at least a half dozen stories about how Obama failed to win a teddy bear at an arcade on the Jersey Shore.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
I'm about done with the pseudoscandals but one last word on the AP records grab. AP's CEO went on the teevee to wail about their persecution today claiming the DoJ violated the constitution.
This guy articulated what galls me about the AP wailing really well:
“We don’t question their right to conduct these sort of investigations, we just think they went about it the wrong way. So sweeping, so secretively, so abusively and harassingly and overbroad that it is an unconstitutional act,” Pruitt said Sunday on CBS’s Face the Nation. [...]I can't speak to the scope of the request. All we have to go on is AP's word about that and frankly, these days that's not worth squat. Certainly the time frame was limited. As far as I know it was done under the law, by subpoena, under precedents set at least as early as the Bush administration. Don't necessarily disagree that it's unconstitutional. If the AP wants to challenge the law on those grounds, they have my full support. But this bid for pity leaves me cold.
“Under their own rules, they are required to narrow this request as narrowly as possible so as to not tread upon the First Amendment. And yet they had a broad, sweeping collection. And they did it secretly,” Pruitt said.
He said it’s already had an effect by making sources skittish about talking to journalists. “I think it will hurt journalists,” Pruitt said of the matter.Really? If your business model depends almost solely on anonymous inside sources who leak to advance their own political agenda, as we saw so brilliantly illustrated this week with Jon Karl's fake scoop, then maybe you need a new model. One that's based on investigative work and independent fact finding instead of lazy repetition of unconfirmed rumors.
This guy articulated what galls me about the AP wailing really well:
And here's the funny part: after years and years of governmental power-grabbing, Unitary Executive over-reaching, Supreme Court rubber-stamping and congressional go-alonging, the dirty fact of the matter is that, almost certainly according to what now passes for American law, the Department of Justice technically did nothing wrong when they plundered the phone histories of all those reporters. [...]Hell, ten years ago this same media was sneering at the "unserious" left for raising the alarm about the Patriot Act. They ignored the anti-war movement. They showed no concern about the encroachment of civil rights against its activists. They fluffed every warmongering talking point. They treated the outing of Valerie Plame, done strictly to cover up the lies that started the damn war on terror, as inconsequential. We told them then, it would lead to this. They mocked us. So forgive me if I send my regrets to AP's pity party.
Well, welcome to the future you helped to create. I have neither pity nor sorrow for you, but I am hopeful that your sudden inclusion in the ranks of the "Oh Shit, They Can Do That?" Club will inspire you to truthfully and factually inform the American people about what has been happening to their country right under their, and your, nose.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
I love Alex Pareene. I wouldn't have thought him capable of writing such a mean-spirited tirade against Media Matters for trying to break through the knee jerk defense of AP going on among the big name stars of the media insiders and inject some much needed perspective.
Let's review the facts one more time. The AP didn't break the second coming of The Pentagon Papers with their story. They exposed an important counter-terrorism operation based solely on leaked information which ultimately led to to the outing of a CIA asset who had infiltrated an active terrorist group. Jack Shafer explains why that matters:
Kevin Drum confirms the entire undercover operation had to be shut down and the double agent was put in jeopardy. If the AP hadn't built the bandwagon with their irresponsible traffic baiting, this operation would still be delivering useful intelligence on terrorist plots. So tell me how was the public interest served by the AP story? And where do you draw the line between national security and profit seeking opportunism by the media? If AP hadn't published the leak, the government wouldn't be looking for the leaker and their records wouldn't been subpoenaed.
As I've said before, I've been fighting for First Amendment rights all my life. I worked my heart out in twenty years working for the ACLU and in private practice defending those rights. I want to protect the freedom of the press, but with that freedom comes responsibility to use it for the public good. I was outraged when Valerie Plame was outed by our government for political gain. Why shouldn't I be equally outraged when the media outs an agent in an active operation simply for their own profit? Dumping on Media Matters for trying to hold the press accountable for irresponsible reporting doesn't answer the question.
Let's review the facts one more time. The AP didn't break the second coming of The Pentagon Papers with their story. They exposed an important counter-terrorism operation based solely on leaked information which ultimately led to to the outing of a CIA asset who had infiltrated an active terrorist group. Jack Shafer explains why that matters:
To begin with, the perpetrators of a successful double-agent operation against al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula would not want to brag about their coup for years. Presumably, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula will now use the press reports to walk the dog back to determine whose misplaced trust allowed the agent to penetrate it. That will make the next operation more difficult. Other intelligence operations — and we can assume they are up and running — may also become compromised as the press reports give al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula new clues.Alex sneers at Media Matters' question, “Is this story about a government source blowing the whistle on government misbehavior, or about a source gratuitously exposing ongoing counter-terrorism operations?” He finds it useless because no liberal wants Media Matters to be the boss of their talking points. Well they probably don't think they need Alex to be the boss of how they choose to influence the public discourse either. Better Alex should answer the question.
Likewise, the next time the CIA or foreign intelligence agency tries to recruit a double agent, the candidate will judge his handlers wretched secret keepers, regard the assignment a death mission and seek employment elsewhere.
Last, the leaks of information — including those from the lips of Brennan, Clarke and King — signal to potential allies that America can’t be trusted with secrets. “Leaks related to national security can put people at risk,” as Obama put it today in a news conference.
Kevin Drum confirms the entire undercover operation had to be shut down and the double agent was put in jeopardy. If the AP hadn't built the bandwagon with their irresponsible traffic baiting, this operation would still be delivering useful intelligence on terrorist plots. So tell me how was the public interest served by the AP story? And where do you draw the line between national security and profit seeking opportunism by the media? If AP hadn't published the leak, the government wouldn't be looking for the leaker and their records wouldn't been subpoenaed.
As I've said before, I've been fighting for First Amendment rights all my life. I worked my heart out in twenty years working for the ACLU and in private practice defending those rights. I want to protect the freedom of the press, but with that freedom comes responsibility to use it for the public good. I was outraged when Valerie Plame was outed by our government for political gain. Why shouldn't I be equally outraged when the media outs an agent in an active operation simply for their own profit? Dumping on Media Matters for trying to hold the press accountable for irresponsible reporting doesn't answer the question.
As if there weren't enough pseudoscandals to go around, our very useful media eagerly embraced the most inane fauxtroversy since flag pins with Umbrellapalooza. This loser was initially pitched by Griftzilla of the Great White North, Sarah Palin who spewed out some word salad on Facebook. No, I didn't read it, but here's the quote making the rounds:
Meanwhile, I saw WaPo's Karen Tumulty saying this was a very important story, because bad optics! Swear the media excuses for fluffing these fauxscandals are getting as lame as the crackpots who invent them. That aside, I seem to be the only one who actually noticed Obama asked for the damn umbrellas in the first place as a courtesy to the Turkish Prime Minister standing next to him.
I watched that presser. Obama initially declined the umbrellas. It wasn't until Obama noticed his guest was uncomfortable that he interrupted his remarks and asked for the damn things. I'm sure if Obama was alone he would have never asked. He's certainly made speeches in bigger rainstorms than that. And he could hardly have asked for just one. It would have embarrassed the Prime Minister. Made him look like a pansy who was afraid to get wet.
You might think our very experienced journos would understand that protocol, but no. Instead they stampeded like a herd of enraged elephants to promote this lazy GOP meme as if they've never seen anything like this before. [via]
Also, this [via] :
And here's a whole gallery of Dharapak photos, many of which show Obama holding his own damn umbrella. A skill his predecessor apparently hadn't mastered well.
And they wonder why no one respects BigMedia anymore?
Mr. President, when it rains it pours, but most Americans hold their own umbrellas.You mean like this, Princess Dimwit? [via]
Meanwhile, I saw WaPo's Karen Tumulty saying this was a very important story, because bad optics! Swear the media excuses for fluffing these fauxscandals are getting as lame as the crackpots who invent them. That aside, I seem to be the only one who actually noticed Obama asked for the damn umbrellas in the first place as a courtesy to the Turkish Prime Minister standing next to him.
I watched that presser. Obama initially declined the umbrellas. It wasn't until Obama noticed his guest was uncomfortable that he interrupted his remarks and asked for the damn things. I'm sure if Obama was alone he would have never asked. He's certainly made speeches in bigger rainstorms than that. And he could hardly have asked for just one. It would have embarrassed the Prime Minister. Made him look like a pansy who was afraid to get wet.
You might think our very experienced journos would understand that protocol, but no. Instead they stampeded like a herd of enraged elephants to promote this lazy GOP meme as if they've never seen anything like this before. [via]
Also, this [via] :
And here's a whole gallery of Dharapak photos, many of which show Obama holding his own damn umbrella. A skill his predecessor apparently hadn't mastered well.
And they wonder why no one respects BigMedia anymore?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
