Letters to the Editor
-
Press Ethics
I think that the title says it all.
Press or editorial ethics would solve the problems of campaign coverage.
Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any of these ethics practiced in America.
Whatever happened to the 5 W's and How? That was reporting. A vital function of democracy that required objectivity in practice, not just rhetoric.
Finding the narrative was the function of pundits who had learned and honed their skills after years of reporting first.
But now the pundits can be demonstrably wrong and entangled in partisan politics without any experience in reporting. And without being censured by ombudsmen or editorial boards.
-
I thought it was bad
when Cobb and Badnarik were arrested in St. Louis for trying to enter the Kerry/Bush debate.
Now, the media/party structure is even excluding candidates like Paul and Kucinich from their coverage, nevermind third parties!
-
bamage (last thought)
The Wizard in Oz, the one behind the veil-curtain, had something to convey once he was exposed.
I read the updates: Can't we drum-up enough citizen interest and initiate a movements to convince the world these 'pundit-crappers' are too creepy-dangerous! They are dangers to self and the rest of the world.
These bad-joint 'critters' hanging 'round the presidential hopeful caravans are doing Nothing Good. Nothin'! Nothing.
Who- that is even minimally informed would not agree?
Waste.
Worst than a horse thief....I say, and a Big-Waste of 'our' time. Terrible and inept...gads.
These bad-apples of vile political analysis 'yaks' deserve to be in Institutional Mental Ward lock-ups, immediately. Insanity.
-
and Maureen Downd is junior-high
GG: The other day, when writing about the cold shoulder reporters gave to Clinton when she entered their bus with coffee and bagels, and Ben Smith's "reporting" that "it was like the awkwardness to running unexpectedly into an ex-girlfriend," I asked: "Do they ever think about anything without reference to some high school cliche?"
=====
That is at least a level about Maureen Dowd, who behaves with the maturity a junior high student
-
Since you seem to be focussing
On our friends over at Time, I'll add few points.
It's noteworthy that directly after AMC tries to get some truth out of McCain, JK takes him to task as well. (Of course we all know that JK is a DLC driven Hillary fan)
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/01/mccains_lost_weekend.html
Also note that here:
http://www.time-blog.com/swampland/2008/01/reexamining_rudys_florida_stra.html#comment-383321
Michael Scherer claims that the High-School metaphor was tongue in cheek. Of course he had to, having generated over 108 responses from people who felt it was necessary to pick their jaws up off the floor after such a ridiculaous post.
-
@che Pasa
Re: "The Role of Political Reporters"
is to do what their editors and managing editors and publishers and producers want, nothing more, nothing less.
-- Ché Pasa
I don't think that tells the whole story, Che. It just happens to be the case that this grade school mentality and cool kids crap happens to be what the editors and publishers want, because they are of the same mentality. If editors and publishers suddenly were of the stripe of those who want real reporting, our current lineup of beltway reporters would not be able to deliver it. They are what they are. They aren't showing the shallow side of themselves just to sell stocks. They actually are shallow and know of no other way to be.
-
Why should political reporting be any different than any other?
Is it time to demand affirmative action in America's Mass Media? http://homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com/2007/05/is-it-time-to-bust-corporate-media.html Oh yes and congrats in advance Mr. Dirks on your 9,000th comment. You are my favorite GG groupie. Keep making the world safe for mush mouthed hypocritical liberals everywhere. They owe you buddy!
-
Is Mickey Kaus Considered To Be A Journalist?
for Mickey Kaus to use rumors published in the National Enquirer to try to bring down John Edwards tells us all we need to know about him. the idiocy of his ideas is surpassed only by the means he uses to try to get us to believe him.
-
Press prejudices have gotten worse
In '64, the press loved Goldwater but still reported his gaffes and recognized he would make a horrible president. They hated LBJ, but gave him his due. Flash forward to 2000, 2004, and 2008--they love Bush and promote him as a "regular guy" and they hate Gore and try to make him sound as mendacious as Bush really is. Ditto Kerry and now we get the same thing with McCain, Clinton et al.
One has to wonder where the wheels fell off. My guess is that as these guys have gained money and celebrity, their ability to see past themselves has pretty much disappeared. In addition, few of these guys (and their all guys!) has had much grunt experience as journalists--no war reporting, no police calls, no covering dull suburban city council meetings. One of the best DC reporters of recent years was Tom Brazaitis, who started out reporting and editing for a string of suburban and neighborhood newspapers.
The only corrective is to keep calling them out. One significant chnage is the emrgence of PauL Krugman, Frank Rich, and Dan Froomkin. Krigman is a credentialed academic and an outsider to journalism. Rich knows show business and the difference between sho business and the real work of politics,. Froomkin is a journalist but operating on the sidelines of a major newpaper. they seem to recognize the childishness of the White House press. It's only a start, but having credible, syndicated observers like these and the web is a way to start chipping away at this silliness.
-
Edwards and Anger
One of the effects of the media ignoring Edwards (and there's no question about that) has been, IMO, to force him to ratchet up his rhetoric, and move further to the center of the Democratic constituency. His recent statements on Iraq are one example, but the growing ardor of his populism, I think, has been an attempt to break through the cone of silence the media has dropped around his campaign.
It's been bizarre from the outset. Like Bob Dole, the losing VP candidate from '92 running in 1996, one would have expected Edwards to be the presumptive front runner. The idea of a former First Lady as a candidate would perhaps have justified CLinton being positioned as the main challenger, but it begs credulity that a junior Senator in his first term would be anointed ahead of the last election's VP candidate.
So as Edwards has expressed his populist views in stronger terms, he's now being dismissed as being "angty" or having "vitriol" that is not appropriate in an election that they are also finally being forced to acknowledge is about change. This sense of change is not directed merely at the Bush administration, but at the palpable failure to deliver what the elections of 2006 called for--an end to the occupation of Iraq, and the refocusing of the government on the needs of ordinary Americans.
The failure of the 2006 Congressional class, in an election result even more sweeping than the 1994 "revolution" is driving even more pressure from voters to shift the focus of our elected officials from the donors and the Serious People to the needs and desires of constituents.
The most compelling evidence has been voter interest in the early events, turnout in Iowa and event attendance in NH, as has been the interest in Paul and Huckabee.
Edwards reflects this voter insurgency more than any other dem candidate. And he is still ignored.