by stormbear, Sat Mar 31, 2007 at 07:41:05 AM EDT
by Don Davis, Wed Nov 29, 2006 at 03:48:20 AM EST
Reprinted from The Satirical Political Report http://satiricalpolitical.com
In a bold move reminiscent of Walter Cronkite in the Vietnam era, NBC has now officially declared that there is a civil war ... in the Iraq Study Group.
The move was announced by Matt Lauer, who was deemed qualified to opine on the subject, after his intense on-air battles with Tom Cruise.
For many months, the media had been in denial, as they continued to characterize the partisan bickering between Republicans and Democrats on the panel as low-level sectarian strife.
However, recent reports of spitballs and paper airplanes being exchanged between James Baker and Lee Hamilton, the Chair and Co-Chair, respectively, have punctured any pretense of unity.
CONTINUED at: http://satiricalpolitical.com/?p=429
by Caro, Thu Nov 02, 2006 at 06:15:16 AM EST
Last night's episode of The Daily Show could have been written by an extremely savvy political consultant in the way it handled the hoopla over John Kerry's recent misstatement vs. the Bush administration's purposeful insults to both the nation and the troops. Watch the replay at 2:00 or 8:00 PM ET today, November 2, on Comedy Central. Later today or tomorrow it will be available on the Comedy Central website.
Good luck getting their mothereffing Motherload to work, though. I've followed all the troubleshooting instructions, and I can only get the sound, not the video. Just getting the sound is still a good thing, though.
by RickM, Mon Sep 11, 2006 at 11:06:54 AM EDT
This link is to a rambling but interesting discussion, which crystallized some thoughts for me.
I have been thinking some about the failure of modern journalism. Yep failure. In every one of the biggest stories of the past nearly 10 years, I think modern journalism has blown it. Clinton Impeachment, The War on Terror, Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, etc.
How? Because the structure of journalism is wrong. The conventional practice is to essentially be a recorder of events. Tell the story. Balance is of course required, and so we have lots of "he said" and "she said."
It is considered wrong, and not the province of news reporting to then go the next step and say, "well, what he said is only partially true and what she said is false in the following respects as well."
There are a number of defects in this approach but two that stand out. The first is, that by taking this so called "neutral" perspective, the profession fails at one of its essential missions -- contributing towards an informed polity.
A balanced report with quotes from both sides cedes public opinion to the better spinmeister. The public is not in a position to hold newsmakers accountable to the facts -- we have day jobs -- but journalists are. Sticking strictly to "he said, she said" leaves the public without any help in parsing the spin to get to the truth, and so the better spin just wins.
The second failure is in serving the reader/audience. Help! I am drowning in information, and much of it is based on original source material created by people with a definite agenda. I need a professional to help me parse it. Sticking strictly to "he said, she said" doesn't' help me.
This sounds like the same point twice, but it isn't. The first problem is that the better spin wins, the second is that it isn't serving the customer's needs.
How do I know what the customer's needs are? Well I don't, but I look at the success of Fox News, or the Daily Show, and I think, "hmmm... Maybe people want something more than just neutral reportage."
I'm not suggesting a left leaning alternative to Fox News. Instead what I am suggesting is that mainstream media embrace the notion that it has to fairly, and without bias, hold newsmakers accountable to facts and history. Perhaps this is analysis -- so what. It's the right thing to do to serve the primary mission of the profession, and its smart business to meet customers needs.