Politics The 4th Estate - Media....is it truth or fiction? TFP pundits will examine.

rogue49 · Nov 5, 2012

I know constantly we are complaining about the media.
Well, here's the place to note it and bitch about it.

Especially after this LONG election cycle...emphasizing CONSTANT news cycles.

One headline after another...just to get your attention.
If it bleeds, it leads.

Say what you want about it...it's a necessary evil.
The informed person, has to use it.
But what do you filter out?
What is biased?
What is truth?

What is simply just spit and vomit?
What is changing about it...bad or good?
Is it useful?

You tell me what you think?
Me?...It's like crack. Unheathy, but I can't stop it...I need it.

The new 'no comment': F--- off
By: Dylan Byers and John F. Harris - November 5, 2012

The reporter’s e-mail was insistent, his questions obviously skeptical. The State Department official’s response was defensive, his mood obviously annoyed.

Then the missiles started flying.

“Why do you bother to ask questions you already know the answer to,” Philippe Reines, a communications adviser to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, asked the reporter.

“Why don’t you give answers that aren’t bullshit for a change?” responded Michael Hastings, a reporter for the BuzzFeed website.

Reines then called Hastings an “unmitigated asshole” and suggested that he “[expletive] off.” Hastings responded with a sneering remark about Reines’s personal life. Reines closed by telling Hastings that he was now designated as “junk mail” on his computer and telling him to “have a good life.”

This exchange gave Washington reporters and political operatives alike a prurient thrill when BuzzFeed published it in full several weeks ago. In truth, however, the fact that the whole thing went public was the only remarkable thing about it.

“The email happened to be posted, but somebody has a conversation like that every day,” said Peter Baker, a White House reporter who has covered the last three administrations, now with The New York Times.

It is one of the signature developments of Washington during the Obama years: a flourishing F-bomb culture, one that has spread far beyond the White House and now pervades government-media relations in both parties, all across the capital.

The close 2012 presidential campaign has been an especially ideal environment for this new mind-set of nonstop combat — marked by blazing email trails, streaked with profanity and accusations of incompetence and bad faith.

These kinds of confrontations, while hardly unheard-of in earlier eras, now happen with frequency and ferocity that represents a fundamental change.

Operatives representing government and campaigns blame a pattern of hyperventilating and shallow coverage by the media, and say getting aggressive — and at times volcanic — with reporters is a natural response when confronted with frivolous or insulting inquiries, or complicated questions that come with a warning that a story will be posting within minutes.

Reporters blame a pattern of swaggering non-responsiveness among press aides, in which operatives often seem to be posturing to win favor with colleagues and bosses for being tough and infuse what should be routine interactions with a mood of snarling, self-important melodrama.

Beyond these dueling accusations, there is clearly a convergence of larger factors that have helped transform Washington’s media culture.

The biggest by far is technology. A nonstop newscycle that began a generation ago with cable television has accelerated vastly with the ascendancy of the Web and, during this election cycle, the pivotal role of Twitter. Operatives say what might look like minor stories or nuisances can metastasize in minutes into major uproars, forcing them to be uncommonly aggressive in confronting unfavorable story lines.

And both reporters and operatives acknowledge that the amount of reporting now done by email and instant message, and sometimes by Twitter, often has the effect of depersonalizing journalism, and makes it easier for insults to fly and tempers to boil over.

“The level of pugilism is higher. The tonal quality of politics has descended and become much more vitriolic. People scream at each other in a way they didn’t used to,” Mike McCurry, the former Clinton White House press secretary, told POLITICO.

“It’s poisonous heading toward toxic,” said Jim Manley, the former spokesman for Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Top White House spokesmen have teed-off at top journalists at such establishment platforms as The New York Times and The Washington Post editorial page. Reporters at POLITICO and elsewhere have been pulled out of briefing rooms or chased down the street by finger-waving flacks demanding that they show greater respect to their bosses. Baker described “long, ridiculous email flame wars” that nevertheless “don’t solve any of the issues.”

One spokesperson said that during the 2008 campaign, when controversy surrounding the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was at its height, Obama’s then-deputy press secretary Ben LaBolt would “be screaming so loud at Brian Ross [of ABC News] or Fox News that people came out of their offices to see what was going on.” Dan Pfeiffer, now White House communications director, “would wander out of his office as if he was just talking on his cellphone,” the source said, “but really he was checking to see if he needed to monitor somebody.”

Veteran newsman Al Hunt, the executive Washington editor of Bloomberg News, said that Pfeiffer and White House press secretary Jay Carney “went ballistic” on him after he reported on a background briefing that they had tried to change to “off the record,” despite the fact that the official giving the briefing said it was “on background.”

“They claimed we had violated all the ground rules, and were never going to be invited back again. I essentially said, “F— you” — the official has more authority than the flack,” Hunt told POLITICO. “The next morning, Bloomberg was excluded from the meeting for White House regulars. They’d instructed [Treasury Secretary Timothy] Geithner to disinvite us.”

From the White House perspective, a sensational and traffic-obsessed press corps is increasingly hard to manage. Replying to a POLITICO reporter’s inquiry, sent by email, a top deputy in the White House press office accused the reporter of trying to “drum up some criticism on short notice to facilitate the publishing of another blog item that will hopefully land you the Drudge Report link that you covet.”

“This cycle, this stuff happens literally every single day,” one former White House spokesperson said.

Confrontations like these have a more familiar ring to veteran reporters and political aides in New York City, where a tabloid culture has long defined the media culture and press aides like Zenia Mucha, who worked for Al D’Amato and George Pataki, and Sunny Mindel, for Rudy Giuliani, became legendary for their aggressive style. But in Washington — historically a more collegial town, where journalists traditionally were a part of the establishment rather than a raucous force outside it — routine shouting arguments and digital flame wars are a cultural shift.

For some, aggressiveness seems to be, in part, a way of establishing one’s bona fides. After Carney left Time magazine to join the administration — first as a spokesman for Vice President Joe Biden — he became well known for his blustery tirades, coming off a little like a former smoker on an anti-tobacco crusade as he lectured former colleagues about their alleged journalistic failings. Carney, whose edges softened a bit after becoming the main White House press secretary, did not return a phone message that he says his office did not alert him to, and did not return emails at an address that he said is incorrect. After an early version of this story was posted, he did not comment.

“It’s a macho-ness,” said Manley, describing the new style of press relations. “I have to admit that there have been handful of occasions where it made me feel a hell of a lot better, even if a handful of them were completely over the top and egregious. It’s a little bit of trying to prove you’re a tough guy, trying to play the refs, on the expectation that you’ll be in better footing the next time.”

Brad Dayspring, former aide to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, admitted that he “can run a little bit hot.”

“I look at myself as the center, and my boss as the quarterback,” Dayspring said. “When you have that kind of mentality, you aggressively attack, repeatedly.”

But nothing contributes to the current culture of confrontation so much as the always-on mentality made possible by the Web and social media.

“The onset of digital media, especially Twitter, tends to inflame the tensions. You used to have a real-time conversation. Now you get back to your desk and all of a sudden your boss is getting destroyed for something that you didn’t even know had happened,” Dayspring said. “The entire business is in overdrive; there is never a slow moment.”

“The 24/7 news cycle, the fact that every movement is tweeted, what a candidate is having for dinner is a short blip on cable news — it creates tension,” Manley explained. “The press feels the need to cover every single minute, every single action, and it puts the flacks in a defensive crouch automatically.”

Reporters and media operatives agree that the increases in speed have put more demands on both sides: Reporters who used to file one story at the end of the day are now expected to write, tweet, blog and make television and radio appearances throughout the day. By the same token, those on the communications side have to be at the ready around the clock. To meet these demands, reporters and press representatives spend less time meeting with each other, opting instead to handle much of their correspondence over the phone or, increasingly, by email and instant message.

“Going after someone with an obscenity-laced attack from reporter to flack, or flack to reporter, happened 30 or 40 years ago. But it didn’t happen electronically, it happened over a drink at the end of day,” Joe Lockhart, the veteran Democratic press secretary, said. “It’s amazing just how sterile the relationships are now. There are technologies that bring people together and technologies that separate us. The current technology has allowed people to report things quicker, but it’s driven a wedge between reporters and the people who cover them.”

“There used to be time to get answers, to establish a relationship. Now it’s feels like a fast-food media environment,” said Ron Bonjean, the veteran Republican spokesman. “The media is going through the drive through, and if they don’t get it in time, they go with the story even if it may be somewhat inaccurate.”

Because email and instant message are so impersonal, reporters and flacks are less wary of flying off the handle.

“People will say things to you in emails that they would never say to you to your face. They’ll go further in emails than they would have on the phone or in person,” Baker said. “There is something liberating about typing. You get these emails full of words that wouldn’t be acceptable in the family newspaper.”

Communications people also complained of reporters using email and avoiding phone calls simply to give the appearance of reporting.

One Republican spokesperson described an experience that is all-too-familiar to those on the PR side: “I’ll get an email from a reporter which says, ‘I’m posting something in 20 minutes, I need a comment.’ That isn’t journalism, that’s ‘I need to check a box,’” the spokesperson said. “There are very few reporters who are willing to take the time to understand an issue.”

But if reporters seem impatient, it is due in part to the fact that government and campaign officials have no problem ignoring emails and phone calls, or stonewalling them for hours — an eternity in the contemporary media environment, where there is a premium on speed.

“One thing some reporters don’t understand: Not calling back is a tactic. This isn’t about social graces. It’s a tool, and one that usually works to our advantage,” one high-level government spokesman said.

“I certainly don’t blame journalists, [but] I don’t blame flacks for being more guarded,” said Paul Begala, the Democratic strategist and former Clinton aide. “If you are on the flack side of things, every decision is a calculation of risk vs. reward. The risk of being human or funny or controversial is so high, and the reward is so low.”

Though the reporter-flack relationship is inherently adversarial, these measures have given rise to a new feeling of distance and mutual distrust.

“There isn’t a sense that, at the end of the day, you put your jobs aside and understand you’re all in this together,” Lockhart said. “It’s much more transactional now, 24 hours a day, not 12 hours a day. The relationships are more distant, more superficial, and as a result there is a little bit of a slash and burn mentality on both sides.”

“There is a different style people have now,” Hastings explained. “The media marketplace is so competitive, the pressure on communications people is so big. One remark can dominate a news cycle for days and forever define them. If you’re a communications person, you have to be aggressive.”

Communications people, especially, feel the pressure of today’s hyperpartisan media environment, in which more news outlets than ever are looking to amplify a gaffe or cry foul on the opposite side, and nearly every story is embraced as a weapon or a shield in a nonstop ideological war.

“Part of the frustration people might have is, it’s a more partisan media,” Ben Smith, the editor in chief of BuzzFeed, told POLITICO. “People who work for campaigns believe that some of the folks asking questions are working for institutions that are out to destroy their candidates.”

“There is a younger generation of flacks who believe certain news organizations are either for them or against them, either rooting for them or trying to screw them,” Chuck Todd, the NBC News political director and chief White House correspondent, said. “The fact is, a majority of the mainstream media is not that way. But flacks treat them that way. Younger flacks are somehow accepting those stereotypes.”

One government spokesman echoed those fears when he explained just how much time communications people now have to spend dealing with partisan outlets.

“People will bitch about the White House press office: ‘Why are they so antagonistic?’ But if you were sitting where Dan Pfeiffer or [National Security Council spokesman] Tommy Vietor sit, you’d realize a fair amount of what comes over transom is not just ridiculous, it’s nasty,” the spokesperson said, citing inquiries about the president’s birth certificate and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. “If you’re sitting in these kinds of jobs, it’s a harsh shift from when Eagle Publishing calls with some crazy conservative theory and when The Washington Post calls. It gets muddied.”

Age, too, can be a factor. While older hands complain about the “breakdown of collegiality,” younger reporters and flacks seem hardly aware that things were ever any different.

“You probably need to go back a little earlier than me. I came up in the school of ‘f—- you’ communications people,” one young Republican spokesperson said.

“In my experience, the best press secretary-reporter relationships involve cussing each other all day then going out for ice cream,” said Reuters correspondent Sam Youngman.

Youngman, who is 35 and has covered three presidential campaigns, is actually old by the standards of the campaign trail, where many reporters are covering their first presidential campaign alongside traveling press aides who are equally inexperienced. With so few old hands on the trail, there are few mentors to show these novices the ropes.

“The age gap is problematic. When I was on the campaign in 2000, a lot of the reporters were graybeards. Now most campaign reporters have never previously covered a presidential campaign,” Ari Fleischer, former White House press secretary under President George W. Bush, said. “In the older days, young reporters could turn to a David Broder or a veteran reporter, and the veteran would put their arm around the reporter and help the reporter. Who does a reporter turn to for wisdom on the trail? And if I’m a press secretary with a complicated story I want to put out, who am I supposed to turn to?”

Fleischer also cited the problem that the informality of Twitter has created for many young journalists.

“Many reporters have split personalities: They’ll tweet madly with a lot of snark, then turn seriously to a communications person and say, ‘I’m really an in-depth, substantive reporter, can I get 10 minutes on the phone with the candidate?’,” he explained. “Reporters who love to tweet and reporters who love substance are having a hard time living side by side in the same person.”

The risks of this relative youth and inexperience came to fruition on the campaign trail in Europe this summer when the Romney press corps, which had hit a boiling point because of restricted access to the candidate, started shouting questions like “What about your gaffes!?” while he was leaving a Polish war memorial.

But if the press corps’ callowness showed that day, so did that of traveling press secretary Rick Gorka, who had hit his own boiling point after days on the road with this restless press corps. As the reporters shouted at the candidate, he told one of them in a shouted whisper, “Kiss my ass!”

“There is no one around to referee the vocab used in the relationship,” McCurry said. “Press aides are screaming at reporters because they crossed some boundary line in the sand, and no one is telling them to rein it in. When I was first the press secretary, one of my mentors would say, ‘That’s too sharp, a little over the top. Calm down, take a deep breath.’”

It’s even worse on the campaign trail, McCurry said, where “any perceived marginal slight becomes something you want to make a federal case out of.”

Reporters, who believe the relationship with the people they cover should remain fundamentally adversarial, still argue that neither side is benefiting from the current climate of confrontation.

“It’s counterproductive,” Baker said. “Some [press aides]] believe if you push against a reporter on one story, you may think you’re getting into their head for the next one. But I tend to think it’s opposite. The best flacks I work with deal with you professionally. If they don’t like something, they take the time to explain why they thought it was wrong.”

“In general,” said Hastings, “a kind word gets you further than a ‘f—-you.’”

© 2012 POLITICO LLC
Click to expand...

ASU2003 · Nov 6, 2012

The media has become a big part of the problem. They are trying to find the next gaffe instead of the next watergate. And when the lack of facts, lots of money, and biases get into it... The coming up with solutions is replaced by whose sports team/political party will win.

rogue49 · Nov 7, 2012

The Pot calling the Kettle black...

Fox is Suddenly Worried About “Media Bias” and its Impact on Democracy
by Kris E. Benson

Apparently there are “new questions” about the role of the media 2012 race! What kind of questions? Well, the kind Fox Nooz asks, like: why does the media insist on pointing out all the lies that come out of Mitt Romney’s mouth? And: why do they have to call constant attention to the fact that Gingrich is a womanizing scumbag? Yes, those kinds of questions.

A video opens with a clip of Newt being his normal charming classy self, telling a primary debate moderator that it’s basically his fault that there aren’t “decent” people running for office. Then cut to Megyn Kelly, who seems like she might be a little drunk? Maybe? And then here comes Fox Nooz contributor Jonah Goldberg to weigh in on the controversy (so yeah, maybe she IS a little drunk because even Megyn Kelly probably dreads talking to Jonah Goldberg) as well as some regular Fox Nooz contributor, so we KNOW we’re in store for a balanced, nuanced discussion, what with all these Fox Nooz contributors chatting about how much the media SUCKS. Except for Fox Nooz, who is Above it All. As usual.
Click to expand...

Is this simply the blame game??

Actually, I mostly watch Fox News for the elections night results.
CNN and MSNBC were frustrating.
Fox was on top of it, up to date, had better stats...and even pushed back against Karl Rove when he questioned the Ohio call.

While there is some significant bias on Fox...there are some certain shows that are truly "fair & balanced".
BTW...I tried watching MSNBC today...made me want to throw up...just as bad as Fox at it's worst.
Over the Top, Snide and Condesending...only uber Liberal, instead of ultra-conservative.

rogue49 · Nov 9, 2012

I consider the polls as a part of the media.

They put out info to absorb across the communications.

And they need to be reviewed and evaluated as much as any other.

So, I have for you this...Who's The Best Pollster Of 2012? ...Not So Fast

I find this fascinating...because it confused the public...and even the pundits and political analysts.
It was obvious to me who was highly biased...but it's interesting who got it on target.

Fortunately, as people have info in front of them...and the polls (ex. PPP and Gallup) and aggragate sites compete (ex. 538 and RCP)
This will slowly force them to make sure they get it right...because being on target for these guys is more of marketing angle than bias.

Accurate math
What a concept.

Willravel · Dec 18, 2012

I read a book recently, Blur by Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, that I think did a good job of very plainly analyzing modern journalism and reached some conclusions that are difficult to ignore.

One of the points of the book is that the onus of determining objective truth has shifted a great deal over the past 50 years and now lies squarely on the consumer of information, not on the press.

Major current issues in journalism include 'clerkism', a term coined by Homer Bigart which describes a common practice among journalists to uncritically accept the official story, especially when it comes from sources like government (like the DoD and White House) and larger corporations. Many journalists and news organizations act more as stenographers than people interested in disseminating the truth. Another major issue is one of the new models of news, namely that news organizations are, now more than ever, profit-driven entities. This added budgetary pressure from management and stockholders means that ratings must be maximized and costs minimized, leaving investigative journalism in the dust of the two major types of modern journalism: journalism of assertion and journalism of affirmation.

Journalism of assertion is built for the modern 24 hour, instant information new cycle. It's built to maximize speed and content meant to get ratings, but there's little verification, it's largely live, and features heavily rumor, innuendo, allegation, accusation, supposition, and hypothesis. It's basically a conduit, whereas older models were more of a filter.

Journalism of affirmation is built to gain a ferociously devoted audience by affirming the audience's preconceptions. These are the highly biased networks that present cherry-picked facts, accusations against those the audience already doesn't like, are often highly political and are in line with one particular political framework.

There's also interest-group journalism, which has started to grow with the movement of think tanks and political groups to the center stage of media. Very often heavily biased think tank and political group spokespeople are invited on news programs ostensibly to share a viewpoint but actually just there to heap outright propaganda.

What all this means is that the fourth estate is not so much the press, but has shifted to the consumers of news media. Savvy media consumers should be ultimately responsible for filtering the media they take in, by using questions like "how reliable is the evidence presented with this segment?" and "who stands to gain from the narrative of this story?" They can, by studying, find journalists that consistently provide news that is reliable and gives the consumer all of the information necessary to come to an informed conclusion about what's really going on.

I recall taking critical thinking back in college, learning about systems of skepticism and such. Perhaps one solution to the situation we find ourselves in would be teaching critical thinking at a younger age.

rogue49 · Jan 8, 2013

You gotta love this guy...Nate Silver of 538.
Reminds me of the line..."Just the Facts, ma'm"

In this day where everyone in the media has an opinion, an agenda...or looking for an angle, (usually just to get more attention)
he spits it out in the context of a monkish professor...but still interesting. (like Freakonomics...)

Nate Silver: Between pundits and partisans, 'a lot of very delusional people' in politics
By MACKENZIE WEINGER | 1/8/13

New York Times statistician Nate Silver participated in a Reddit “Ask Me Anything” chat today, telling users he finds analyzing politics frustrating because “between the pundits and the partisans, you're dealing with a lot of very delusional people.”

Silver answered a number of questions during Tuesday’s online chat, discussing everything from the future of his FiveThirtyEight blog to the strangest thing that’s happened to him since he shot to fame.

As for whether he finds sports or politics more frustrating to analyze, Silver said politics — “I don’t think it’s close.”

“Between the pundits and the partisans, you're dealing with a lot of very delusional people. And sports provides for much more frequent reality checks,” he wrote. “If you were touting how awesome Notre Dame was, for example, you got very much slapped back into reality last night. In politics, you can go on being delusional for years at a time.”

And regarding what's next for the 538 blog, Silver said he’s still trying to figure out what topics to cover in the wake of the 2012 election.

“After the 2008 election, it became sort of a quantitatively-flavored politics blog, and I think that was something of a mistake. Some things, like cabinet nominations, really do [require] careful reporting, and statistical analysis will provide a dollop of color commentary at best,” he wrote. “On other days, the lead political story is just gossipy and stupid and isn't really newsworthy at all. So on a day like today, when the Chuck Hagel nomination is the major political story and that doesn't really play into our strengths, I'd rather write about something like baseball instead.”

“We're definitely overdue to do a couple of posts on same-sex marriage, however,” Silver added.

One issue Silver said he likely wouldn’t devote a blog post to is gun control. “Can you prove whether gun control would make America safer?” a redditor asked.

“It's a tricky problem, statistically,” Silver replied. “The issue is that while gun ownership rates could plausibly be a cause of fatal crimes and accidents, it can also be a reaction to it, i.e. people purchase guns because they feel unsafe. I'm not saying that the issue is intrinsically inscrutable. But it's something that more requires a PhD-thesis-level treatment than a blog post to really add much insight, I think.”

Silver, when asked if he planned to release more information about his methodology or possibly make it open source, noted that he sometimes gets too wrapped up in punditry, something he has vocally criticized.

“I'd certainly like to aim to increase the level of disclosure at 538 going forward. Sometimes what happens is that I have best intentions to write a super detailed, 5000-word methodology post, and then some senate candidate does or says something stupid, and I get caught up in the news cycle and it gets forgotten about. Which is a pretty lame excuse, I know,” Silver wrote.

And as for the strangest experience he’s had due to his sudden fame, Silver told redditors that “when I was in Mexico last week, I got recognized at the top of the Sun Pyramid at Teotihuacan, which I'm pretty sure really is a sign of the Apocalypse.”
Click to expand...

rogue49 · Feb 28, 2013

There's many sentiments that I agree with in this article.
But I'm not for or against Obama in it...he's made his own mistakes too...however I'm not sure of ripping apart the rep of Woodward either.
Woodward can be incorrect without all of his career being incorrect, so the author is doing the same of what he's saying Woodward is doing.

The author is right, it's kind of irrelevant who's responsible for the Sequester law.
Everyone involved are big boys & girls, they made it, voted on it, signed it. So everyone is culpable for the most part.
We should be interested on who's making the calls and WHAT calls if it does happen.

He's also right that Congress makes the laws, not the President...that is the Constitution. He can suggest or coax only.
President may be able to execute them with some discretion, or do something that is not applied by law.
But he should NOT go around what's been made law. More so he cannot, otherwise he's breaking the law.

The President while CIC also can request cooperation...but he can't MAKE Congress cooperate. Just like he can't control the Supreme Court.
There's been quite a few pundits lately on both sides saying the President is not doing anything by not doing "Leadership",
totally ignoring the literal limitations of power of ANY president...and the wayward mercurial will of Congress.

Congress is not a team of horses that are out of control to be brought under control.
But more like a Board of Directors that votes and sets policy ...and the CEO attempts to implement beyond that.
Can the CEO try to influence? Sure, but they certainly don't control.
And the Board and Congress are responsible for their OWN actions...or lack of them.

Bob Woodward demands law-ignoring, mind-controlling presidential leadership
Washington's most respected reporter is embarrassing himself in his sequester showdown comments

By Alex Pareene of Salon.com

Bob Woodward rocked Washington this weekend with an editorial that hammered President Obama for inventing “the sequester” and then being rude enough to ask that Congress not make us have the sequester. Woodward went on “Morning Joe” this morning, and he continued his brutal assault:

“Can you imagine Ronald Reagan sitting there and saying ‘Oh, by the way, I can’t do this because of some budget document?’” Woodward said Wednesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.”

“Or George W. Bush saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to invade Iraq because I can’t get the aircraft carriers I need’ or even Bill Clinton saying, ‘You know, I’m not going to attack Saddam Hussein’s intelligence headquarters,’ as he did when Clinton was president because of some budget document?” Woodward added. “Under the Constitution, the president is commander-in-chief and employs the force. And so we now have the president going out because of this piece of paper and this agreement, I can’t do what I need to do to protect the country. That’s a kind of madness that I haven’t seen in a long time.”

Speaking of kinds of madness, Woodward’s actual position here is insane. As Dave Weigel points out, “some budget document” is a law, passed by Congress and signed by the president. Woodward is saying, why won’t the president just ignore the law, because he is the commander in chief, and laws should not apply to him. That is a really interesting perspective, from a man who is famous for his reporting on the extralegal activities of a guy who is considered a very bad president!

Also, that George W. Bush analogy is amazing. It would have been a good thing for him to invade and occupy Iraq without congressional approval? Say what you will about George W. Bush, at least he was really, really devoted to invading Iraq. (And yes the Reagan line, lol.)

There is nothing less important about “the sequester” than the question of whose idea it originally was. So, naturally, that is the question that much of the political press is obsessed with, to the exclusion of almost everything else. Republicans have been making the slightly incoherent argument that a) the sequester, which is a bad thing, is entirely Obama’s fault, b) Obama is exaggerating how bad the sequester will be, and c) the sequester, which is Obama’s fault, is preferable to not having the sequester. Woodward has lately been fixated on Obama’s responsibility for the idea of the sequester, but at this point, the important question is who will be responsible if it actually happens. On that question, Woodward, and others, have taken the position that it will be Obama’s fault because he has failed to “show leadership.” But laws come from Congress. The president signs or vetoes them. Republicans in the House are unwilling and unable to repeal the law Congress passed creating the sequester. All Obama can do is ask them to pass such a law, and to make the case to the public that they should pass such a law. And Obama has been doing those things, a lot.

Woodward’s most recent Obama book also took the position that presidents “should work their will … on important matters of national business,” though how one’s will should be worked on a congressional opposition party led by a weak leader and unwilling even to negotiate with the president is never really explained. As Jonathan Chait points out, “use mind control to get your way” is an incredibly popular argument among centrist establishment political reporters and analysts. It is a convenient way of taking a debate where most people agree that one side has a reasonable position and the other side an unreasonable position and making it still something you can blame “both sides” for. Sure, the Republicans are both hapless and fanatical, but the president should make them not be.

Bob Woodward’s name is synonymous with Quality Journalism, mostly because of one really good movie. The movie, based on a book that is riddled with exaggeration and misdirection, permanently established Woodward as the best shoe-leather reporter in politics, though his modern reporting style does not put too much of a strain on his Ferragamo loafers: He simply talks to powerful people in his kitchen and then “re-creates” events based on what they tell him. Powerful people talk to Woodward because of his reputation, and because talking to Woodward is the best way to ensure that they come across well in his best-selling books. They talk because they figure if they don’t give him a self-serving account of events, someone else will give him a version that makes them look bad. My dream is a Washington where no one talks to Woodward, but until that happens people will continue to pay attention to his biennial book-promoting cable news blitzes and occasional appearances in the pages of the newspaper that continued to pay him a salary — despite his withholding most of his original reporting from that newspaper — until quite recently.

In 2010 he said a Hillary Clinton-Joe Biden switch was “on the table,” although it was not. He suffered no professional consequences for saying made-up nonsense. Bob Woodward has lost it, let’s all stop indulging him.
Click to expand...

rogue49 · Jun 24, 2013

You know...this is why I created this thread.
Even the media is now recognizing that the media is now tabloid...the headline means more than the truth and context.

The internet & 24/7 news cycle has created a beast looking for constant attention,
by reporting on "beasts" looking for constant attention.

Welcome to the "Tweet-World" of knowing when your politician shits...and the enraged echo that follows the splash in the toilet.

When Journalists Attack
by Jon Favreau | June 24, 2013

With its rush to compare Obama to Nixon and to overhype any and all scandals, the media is ruining America’s ability to engage in nuanced debate, says Jon Favreau.

If you saw the news at any point in the last month, chances are that you heard Barack Obama compared in some way to Richard Nixon and the Watergate scandal (BuzzFeed has my favorite compilation here (Obama Is Nixon, According To Cable News) ). A quick and admittedly unscientific Google search on the comparisons turns up 1.7 million hits, and they are not limited to right-wing media or Republican politicians. Partisan and nonpartisan journalists across the political spectrum casually and frequently linked Obama to Nixon over and over again, this publication included.

A quick refresher for those of us who weren’t around during the Watergate Era: reams of hard evidence, unearthed through some heroic reporting and independent investigation, revealed that the president of the United States had personally and repeatedly used the power of the federal government—the IRS, the FBI, the CIA—to target and destroy his potential challengers for reelection.

From Nixon’s mouth: “Are we looking over the financial contributors to the Democratic National Committee? Are we running their income tax returns? We have all this power and we aren’t using it. Now, what the Christ is the matter?”

Indeed. The stated goal of the Nixon administration, spelled out in a memo from the White House counsel(!), was to “use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.” And that they did. Richard Nixon actually ordered IRS audits on his political enemies. He actually sanctioned multiple break-ins, including one of a psychiatrist’s office to steal the patient files of Daniel Ellsberg, a true whistleblower. At one point, he placed Ted Kennedy, his most powerful political opponent, under 24-hour surveillance. And six days after the Watergate break-in, Nixon told his chief of staff to “call the FBI and say that we wish, for the country, don’t go any further into this case, period.”

Just to provide some perspective, there was apparently a moment toward the end of the Watergate hearings where the Secretary of Defense told military commanders not to obey their commander in chief if Nixon tried to “restore order” by sending out troops.

That is some heavy stuff, people!

Fast forward to this, Our Summer of Scandal, where the impeachment hearings of Barack H. Obama should have been well underway by now. Instead, the facts that have emerged over the last month, through more solid reporting and independent investigation, are proving once again that the political media’s addiction to sensationalism and snap-judgment hyperbole has contributed to a lack of serious, informed debate about issues that badly deserve it.
Click to expand...

rogue49 · Aug 8, 2013

Ok, we hear about how the media has a "liberal" bias all the time.
Mostly from conservatives worn down by the media harping on some current conservative's inane actions/words and they're looking for a gimme.

But is is truly liberal oriented??
I don't think so, otherwise we wouldn't have to hear about Anthony Wiener constantly (another of media's addictions, sex )

The media's MO is "if it bleeds, it leads"
And the 24/7 news cycle doesn't help, nor the variety of news outlets and even more to, the internet.
They've got to fill it with something...

Well, here's another perspective...from the liberals themselves.
One of their sites are bitching about items near & dear to their hearts - Link (**for very pretty graphics & charts)

15 things everyone would know if there were a liberal media
by akadjian

Prince Riebus (and apparently many others) still thinks there's a liberal media.
While I share Prince's frustration with the media, as a liberal, I'd like to go on record and state that the media isn't focusing on issues I care about. They seem to be far more focused on entertainment and making money.
Don't believe me?

If you know anyone who still believes in a "liberal media," here's 15 things everyone would know if there really were a "liberal media" (inspired by Jeff Bezos' purchase of The Washington Post):

1. Where the jobs went.

Outsourcing (or offshoring) is a bigger contributor to unemployment in the U.S. than laziness.
Since 2000, U.S. multinationals have cut 2.9 million jobs here while increasing employment overseas by 2.4 million. This is likely just the tip of the iceberg as multinational corporations account for only about 20% of the labor force.
When was the last time you saw a front-page headline about outsourcing?

Source: Wall Street Journal via Think Progress.

2. Upward wealth redistribution and/or inequality.

In 2010, 20% of the people held approximately 88% of the net worth in the U.S. The top 1% alone held 35% of all net worth.
The bottom 80% of people held only 12% of net worth in 2010. In 1983, the bottom 80% held 18% of net worth.
These statistics are not Democrat or Republican. They are widely available to reporters. Why aren't they discussed in the "liberal" media?

Source: Occupy Posters

3. ALEC.

If there was a corporate organization that drafted laws and then passed them on to legislators to implement, wouldn't you think the "liberal" media would report on them?

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is such an organization. Need legislation drafted? No need to go through a lobbyist to reach state legislatures anymore. Just contact ALEC. Among other things, ALEC is responsible for:

Stand Your Ground laws

Voter ID laws

Right to Work laws

Privatizing schools

Health savings account bills which benefit health care companies

Tobacco industry legislation

Many legislators don’t even change the proposals handed to them by this group of corporations. They simply take the corporate bills and bring them to the legislative floor.
This is the primary reason for so much similar bad legislation in different states.
Hello ... "liberal media" ... over here!!!
They're meeting in Chicago this weekend. Maybe the "liberal media" will send some reporters.

4. The number of people in prison.

Which country in the world has the most people in prison?
You might think it would be China (with 1+ billion people and a restrictive government) or former Soviets still imprisoned in Russia.

Wrong. The United States has the most people in prison by far of any country in the world. With 5% of the world’s population, we have 25% of the world’s prisoners – 2.3 million criminals. China with a population 4 times our size is second with 1.6 million people in prison.

In 1972, 350,000 Americans were in imprisoned. In 2010, this number had grown to 2.3 million. Yet from 1988 – 2008, crime rates have declined by 25%.
Isn't anyone in the liberal media interested in why so many people are in prison when crime has dropped? WTF "liberal media"?

Source: Wikipedia/Justice Policy Institute Report.

5. The number of black people in prison.

In 2009, non-Hispanic blacks, while only 13.6% of the population, accounted for 39.4% of the total prison and jail population.
In 2011, according to FBI statistics, whites accounted for 69.2% of arrests.
Numbers like these suggest a racial bias in our justice system.
To me, this is a much bigger story than any single incident like Travyon Martin. Or, at the very least, why didn't the "liberal media" ever mention this while covering the Martin story?

6. U.S. health care costs are the highest in the world.

The expenditure per person in the U.S. is $8,233. Norway is second with $5,388.
Total amount of GDP spent on health care is also the highest of any country in the world at 17.6 percent. The next closest country is the Netherlands at 12%.
As a liberal, I’d like to ask why the market isn’t bringing down costs. I’d think a "liberal" media might too.

7. Glass-Steagall.

Glass-Steagall separated risky financial investments from government backed deposits for 66 years.
The idea is simple. Banks were prohibited from using your federally insured savings to make risky investments.
Why is this a good idea?
Risky investments should be risky. If banks can use federally insured funds, there is no risk to them. If they win, they win. If they lose, we cover the cost.
Elizabeth Warren does a great job explaining this to the "liberal news" desk at CNBC:

8. Gerrymandering.

When was the last time you saw a front page headline about gerrymandering?

Before the 2010 election, conservatives launched a plan to win control of state legislatures before the census. The idea was to be in power when national congressional districts were redrawn in order to fix them so Republicans would win a majority of districts.

The Redistricting Majority Project was hugely successful. In 2012, Barack Obama was elected President by nearly 3.5 million votes. In Congressional races, Democrats drew nearly 1.4 million more votes than Republicans yet Republicans won control of the House 234 seats to 201 seats.

How is this possible?

By pumping $30 million into state races to win the legislatures, Republicans redrew state maps in states such as Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Texas, Florida and Ohio to place all of the Democrats into just a few districts.
In this manner, Democrats win heavily in a couple districts and lose the rest.

In North Carolina, the statewide vote was 51 percent Democrat and 49 percent Republican yet 9 Republicans won and only 4 Democrats.

Where is your coverage of this vote stealing, "liberal media"? You're willing to cover voter ID laws, why can't you cover real vote stealing?

Source: Mother Jones.

9. The number of bills blocked by Republicans in Congress.

The filibuster has been used a record number of time since Obama was elected President. From 2008-2012, 375 bills weren’t even allowed to come to a vote in the Senate because Republicans threatened the filibuster.

In 2013, during the first 6 months, Congress has only passed 15 bills that were signed into law. This is 8 fewer than in the first 6 months of 2012 and 19 fewer than 2011.

Also, until the Senate recently threatened to reform the filibuster, the GOP had succeeded in holding up 79 of President Obama’s picks to the U.S. Circuit Court and Courts of Appeal. They’re blocking these appointments regardless of qualification.

Where's the coverage? Where are the reporters asking why nothing is getting done?
* crickets *

10. The Citizens' United Supreme Court decision

In a 2011 Hart poll, only 22% of those polled had actually heard of the Citizens’ United decision before taking the survey.

If 77% believe that corporations have more control over our political process than people, why isn't the liberal media talking more about the Citizens’ United decision?

11. Nixon’s Southern Strategy.

The Southern Strategy is a strategy for gaining political power by exploiting the greatest number of ethnic prejudices. Kevin Philips, Republican and Nixon campaign strategist, speaking about this strategy in a 1970 interview with the New York Times:

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.

This strategy has been used since President Johnson and Democrats in Congress passed the Civil Rights Act to build the Republican party.

Examples of this strategy were evident as recently as 2008 and 2012 as Republicans took up their assault on Medicaid, Social Security, labor unions, and Obamacare – programs which, though they benefit more white seniors, retirees, women, and children, have been sold to many Americans as handouts to lazy, undeserving blacks and minorities.

Yet you never hear the "liberal media" (at least since the 1970 NY Times) talking about the use of this strategy. At least not like this:

"P (President) emphasized that you have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to." - H.R. Haldeman's diary, President Richard Nixon’s White House Chief of Staff
12. Tax cuts primarily benefit the wealthy.

A progressive tax program is designed to tax people very little as they are starting out and progressively increase their rates as they do better.
Republican plans seem designed to do exactly the opposite: shift the tax burden off of the wealthy and onto working people.

Take the repeal of the estate tax. In Ohio this was recently repealed by Republicans. The benefit is only realized by people with estates larger than $338,000 (as the first $338k was exempt) and realized most by people with even wealthier estates.

This also explains why Republicans want to shift the system from income taxes to consumption taxes. Consumption taxes are paid most by those at the bottom as basic consumption remains the same regardless of income.

It also explains why capital gain taxes are so low. Income through capital gains is only taxed at 20% (increased from 15% in 2012) instead of at the rate of other income (closer to 35%).

It also explains why Republicans were so willing to let the payroll tax cut expire. The payroll tax cut benefited people who were getting paid, not those issuing the paychecks. How much fight did you see to save this tax cut?

While tax cuts are sold to us as benefiting everyone, they really benefit a select few at the very top.
If everyone knew who tax cuts really benefit, would so many people vote for them?

13. What's happening to the bees?

40-50% of commercial U.S. bee hives were lost this year to colony collapse disorder.
This seems like an odd one to include, why is this important?
The Agriculture Department says a quarter of the American diet depends on pollination by honeybees.

Dating from 2006, colony collapse disorder is a relatively new problem. More "liberal media" coverage might push the urgency of the issue.
Instead here's a typical media story about bees: Thousands of Bees Attack Texas Couple, Kill Horses.

14. The impact of temporary workers on our economy.

The number of temporary workers has grown by more than 50 percent since the recession ended to nearly 2.7 million.
If freelancers, contract workers, and consultants are included, the number is nearly 17 million workers not directly employed by the companies who hire them. This equals 12 percent of the workforce.

What's the impact of a "just in time" workforce on workers and our economy? How about that for a story "liberal media"?

15. Media consolidation

Six corporations - Time Warner, Disney, News Corporation, Viacom, Comcast, and CBS - control roughly 90% of the media in the U.S.

These companies are in business to make a profit.
This is why you'll find plenty of advertisements in the media. Entertainment? Check. Sports? Definitely. Weather? Yep.

You'll also find plenty of "if it bleeds, it leads" stories designed to hook you in. Vendors, witnesses recall Venice hit-and-run horror. Fort Hood trial turns bizarre as shooter grills witnesses.

There's also plenty of political bickering: Democrats said this, Republicans said that. We let you decide (but we never weigh in with any facts or fact-checking).

What won't you hear? You won't hear the "liberal media" discuss the corporate media.
What to make of this

If the media were "liberal," it would serve the public interest and shine a light on issues like the ones above.
More people would also have a better understanding of global warming, peak oil, population growth, political lobbying, government's role in a functioning economy, how much we spend on the military, and countless other issues.

What you’re more likely to see in the media, however, are stories designed to get you to buy their paper, or watch their show, or listen to their radio station. If it bleeds, it leads. This is why the media is concerned with scandal, celebrities, gossip, and fear.

If anything, our news consists of paid advertisements and outlets too scared of offending anyone to publish much of substance. Investigative journalism is also expensive; entertainment is cheap.

The way this corporate media behaves may not be surprising. I apologize if you feel any of this is beating you over the head.
This Buzzfeed-style list wasn't intended to introduce this idea as new (others have done a much better job), but rather to highlight the sheer absurdity of a "liberal media" for an audience who may not see it.

One way to approach the topic is to simply ask: If we have a "liberal media," where are the liberal stories?
Click to expand...

Baraka_Guru · Aug 8, 2013

This is my own translation of conservospeak:

"The media has a liberal bias" or "the liberal media" generally refers to the rare situations in the media when journalists act like journalists and ask tough questions, let loose "controversial" facts, disprove falsehoods, and challenge extremist ideologies from a centrist position.

This is driven, in the most part, by that largely (but not exclusively) American phenomenon known as binary thinking (e.g., "If you're not with us, you're against us."). The general formula of American conservative thinking is: If it isn't A, then it must be B, whereby it is assumed that B is the opposite of A, and the rest of the alphabet doesn't exist.

In summary, conservatives will criticize "the liberal media," but what they're really saying is that they have a problem with anything outside of their rigid, myopic, and narrow ideology.

They fear liberalism even though they benefit immensely from it. They fear it because they can't control it.

Aceventura · Aug 8, 2013

rogue49 said: ↑

You tell me what you think?
Click to expand...

I think about 99% of the American do not live in the 24 hour news cycle bubble. I think most people casually follow politics and the news most of the time and occasionally focus on major events periodically for short periods of time. People in the media and politicians take the role of the media much more serious than it actually is. People who read and post on this forum are the exception (yes, I am saying you are not normal). Most people look at media and political issues from a very clear point of view, i.e. - does this make sense? is it reasonable? is it fair? can I trust you? An editorial in the NY Times is not going to make them change their views, nor will a monologue by Rush Limbaugh. There is no media bias. It's the public that has a bias and the public consumes the media favorable to their bias.

Baraka_Guru · Aug 8, 2013

Aceventura said: ↑

I think about 99% of the American do not live in the 24 hour news cycle bubble. [...]
Click to expand...

I think you've grossly overestimated this figure, especially considering the smartphone penetration in America is over 60%. Add to that television, radio, laptop/desktop Internet, and traditional print media, in addition to word of mouth, to say that 99% of Americans aren't at least indirectly receiving information from the 24-hour news cycle is a bit naive to say the least.

As for the rest of what you wrote, that is likely the bigger factor: how engaged people are with the information, how they view the information, and how they gauge other peoples' responses to it.

Aceventura · Aug 8, 2013

Baraka_Guru said: ↑

I think you've grossly overestimated this figure, especially considering the smartphone penetration in America is over 60%. Add to that television, radio, laptop/desktop Internet, and traditional print media, in addition to word of mouth, to say that 99% of Americans aren't at least indirectly receiving information from the 24-hour news cycle is a bit naive to say the least.
Click to expand...

I will elaborate. When I am busy and focused on work, family and my down time - politics and hard news come in fourth place and I am a self-proclaimed news junkie. When I do focus on news it is background to other activities, for example my interest in business overlaps with my interest in socio-economic government policy and the politics involved. When I am driving in rural areas and want something other than my Podcasts (hobby related) or music, I will listen to AM talk radio mostly conservative stuff like Rush. When I am getting dressed in the morning I will flip between MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN. During football season my consumption of political news drops significantly and I focus on football. When my wife has control of the remote she she is into Hooda and Kathy or whatever they call themselves - certainly not political news. and so it goes.

Working people don't spend much time per day consuming political news at all. I know many people who purposefully avoid it. tablets, laptops, cell phones, etc. are not being used for political news but are used for social interactions. Even when I go to my gym, and now almost every machine has a TV attached, a survey of what is being watched shows it is almost never political news. And when people are watching a news channel - that channel had better be spending time covering the weather and traffic!

As for the rest of what you wrote, that is likely the bigger factor: how engaged people are with the information, how they view the information, and how they gauge other peoples' responses to it.
Click to expand...

MSNBC spent a considerable amount of time this morning discussing the 2016 Presidential election - polls, who may or may not run, who is or is not a serious canidated, etc. I would say 99.999999999% of the public could careless at this point. About a few months prior to the general election is when most will start to pay attention. Most are not even going to participate in the primaries.

I am not trying to be offensive, but you are a person in the bubble. Step out of it and talk to people, observe people and you will begin to realize that I am correct.

Baraka_Guru · Aug 9, 2013

Aceventura said: ↑

I will elaborate. When I am busy and focused on work, family and my down time - politics and hard news come in fourth place and I am a self-proclaimed news junkie. When I do focus on news it is background to other activities, for example my interest in business overlaps with my interest in socio-economic government policy and the politics involved. When I am driving in rural areas and want something other than my Podcasts (hobby related) or music, I will listen to AM talk radio mostly conservative stuff like Rush. When I am getting dressed in the morning I will flip between MSNBC, Fox News, and CNN. During football season my consumption of political news drops significantly and I focus on football. When my wife has control of the remote she she is into Hooda and Kathy or whatever they call themselves - certainly not political news. and so it goes.

Working people don't spend much time per day consuming political news at all. I know many people who purposefully avoid it. tablets, laptops, cell phones, etc. are not being used for political news but are used for social interactions. Even when I go to my gym, and now almost every machine has a TV attached, a survey of what is being watched shows it is almost never political news. And when people are watching a news channel - that channel had better be spending time covering the weather and traffic!
Click to expand...

Let me elaborate myself. Facebook, which I'm sure you've heard of despite your online habits, has over a billion active users. Think about that for a moment. 1) That's a huge number. 2) That's just one "portal" through which people will be exposed to the 24-hour news cycle, whether directly (links to articles/videos) or indirectly (commentary from "friends" or "friends of friends"). The nature of social media is such that it is highly penetrating. Facebook and many other places such as Twitter and Tumblr are the new commons. It's what many people now use to know what's going on in people's lives, whether it's immediate family, extended family, friends, co-workers, colleagues, etc. While I'm aware that there are many who aren't that "connected," many are, especially those who live urban lives and who participate in popular culture (engaging online is highly popular when it comes to entertainment and even virtually any product and service).

I know people with busy professional and family lives. This doesn't stop them from logging into Facebook on their smartphone when they have a spare moment while waiting in line, sitting on the toilet, stuck in traffic, waiting for a flight connection, etc., you get the point.

I haven't even mentioned more traditional ways people get news. Americans still like TV, right?

You say that news and politics comes fourth to you. Hey, it's in the top 5 in a world where there is too much choice. I'm sure it is the same for many people.

MSNBC spent a considerable amount of time this morning discussing the 2016 Presidential election - polls, who may or may not run, who is or is not a serious canidated, etc. I would say 99.999999999% of the public could careless at this point. About a few months prior to the general election is when most will start to pay attention. Most are not even going to participate in the primaries.
Click to expand...

You're kidding, right? Your exaggerations are absurd.

I am not trying to be offensive, but you are a person in the bubble. Step out of it and talk to people, observe people and you will begin to realize that I am correct.
Click to expand...

You assume too much. I don't go much beyond top headlines when it come to the news. Some days I don't catch more than one or two headlines, and often they aren't even anything that relate to me directly. On weekends, I can go a day or two without knowing what in hell is going on in the world beyond my apartment. I'm more into books, essays, and the like.

I do talk to people, and usually I get the impression they are way more connected to the news than I am. Smartphone penetration in the U.S. is over 60%, and the figure is similar in Canada. Keeping connected to the world is way too easy on one of these devices. I recommend getting one if you haven't already. It's amazing how you can go anywhere and always have information at your fingertips (though I admit this can be abused).

So if over 60% of Americans have such capability to connect, why do you think your 99% figure is so accurate? When you actually look at the trends, it seems absurd. If you said the same about India, it'd be less so, but I'd still be skeptical.

You claimed that barely 3 million Americans live in the 24-hour news cycle. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that that many New Yorkers live in the 24-hour news cycle. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by that. Could you explain what you mean by this "bubble"?

Aceventura · Aug 9, 2013

Baraka_Guru said: ↑

Let me elaborate myself. Facebook, which I'm sure you've heard of despite your online habits, has over a billion active users.
Click to expand...

I am not saying I use the internet for adult content, I am not saying anyone is, it is a private matter in my opinion as long as it involves consenting adults. If you think FB's billion users are impressive...

And if you think people are actually following the news on their news feeds rather than looking at photos of family, friends and cats or sharing jokes and amusing stories involving cats...you may be 100% correct because I don't spend time on FB. I am just going to say I am a cynic.

I haven't even mentioned more traditional ways people get news. Americans still like TV, right?

You say that news and politics comes fourth to you. Hey, it's in the top 5 in a world where there is too much choice. I'm sure it is the same for many people.

You're kidding, right? Your exaggerations are absurd.
Click to expand...

Right. Given about 315 million Americans - the number one MSNBC show gets less than 800,000 viewers. What is that about .2%

MSNBC’s “The Rachel Maddow Show” led MSNBC in total viewers, placing 14th overall and averaging 781,000 viewers. The program placed 18th overall in the demo, averaging 218,000 viewers. “MSNBC Investigates,” the blanket term for MSNBC longform crime docs, led the channel in the demo, averaging 240,000 A25-54.
Click to expand...

Ratings - TVNewser

I know this is just one little isolated way of looking at this issue - I suggest you do your own homework. No doubt when I write something like 99.99999% I am not being precise. But if you actually look at some numbers, then tell me about how I am exaggerating!

redux · Aug 9, 2013

Here is another way of looking at it:

More than half of those in a Pew Center for People & the Press watched the news yesterday, but only a third of the 18-29 demographic:

At the same time, those 18-29ers, particularly those using social networking, are increasingly receive their daily news in that manner (up from 14% to 41% in 2 years):

In Changing News Landscape, Even Television is Vulnerable | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

The frequency is not the issue as much as the source...and the growing reliance on social networking for "news" that is more likely to be biased and/or partisan, less likely to be fact checked, and generally less reliable than the more traditional news sources.

And I wont get into the studies that have shown Fox News viewers/readers (TV and/or website, facebook, etc) are more likely to be misinformed than other similar sources.

roachboy · Aug 9, 2013

among the problems to maybe think about is the consequences of a combination of cut-backs in correspondents and bureaus with a concomitant increase in reliance on officially pre-packaged infotainment that circulates as if it were "news". remember the selling of the iraq debacle?

for example.

Baraka_Guru · Aug 9, 2013

Aceventura said: ↑

I am not saying I use the internet for adult content, I am not saying anyone is, it is a private matter in my opinion as long as it involves consenting adults. If you think FB's billion users are impressive...

And if you think people are actually following the news on their news feeds rather than looking at photos of family, friends and cats or sharing jokes and amusing stories involving cats...you may be 100% correct because I don't spend time on FB. I am just going to say I am a cynic.
Click to expand...

Can you find a single adult website that has over a billion active users? My guess is that you can't. Do you understand what I'm getting at here?

Right. Given about 315 million Americans - the number one MSNBC show gets less than 800,000 viewers. What is that about .2%
Click to expand...

Do you know how many articles from MSNBC are posted via Facebook alone? What about virtually all other news sources? What about other social media sites and all the other means people use to access information on their smartphones? Do you understand what I'm getting at here?

I know this is just one little isolated way of looking at this issue - I suggest you do your own homework. No doubt when I write something like 99.99999% I am not being precise. But if you actually look at some numbers, then tell me about how I am exaggerating!
Click to expand...

I've done my homework. Have you done yours? I've told you how you're exaggerating, and all you've done is given me data on a single show from a single network. You pulled a number out of your ass. I suggested you're exaggerating and have given you some ideas why. The onus is still kind of on you.

redux · Aug 19, 2013

Al Jazeera America goes live tomorrow (check here for availability)

Fourteen hours of straight news every day. Hard-hitting documentaries. Correspondents in oft-overlooked corners of the country. And fewer commercials than any other news channel

It sounds like something a journalism professor would imagine. In actuality, it is Al Jazeera America, the culmination of a long-held dream among the leaders of Qatar, the Middle Eastern emirate that already reaches most of the rest of the world with its Arabic- and English-language news channels. The new channel, created specifically for consumers in the United States, will join cable and satellite lineups on Tuesday afternoon.

Al Jazeera America is the most ambitious American television news venture since Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes started the Fox News Channel in 1996. It faces some of the same obstacles that Fox eventually glided over — including blanket skepticism about whether distributors, advertisers and viewers will give it a chance. But that is where the parallels to other channels end, because Al Jazeera America is going against the grain of seemingly every trend in television news.

“Viewers will see a news channel unlike the others, as our programming proves Al Jazeera America will air fact-based, unbiased and in-depth news,” said Ehab Al Shihabi, the channel’s acting chief executive, on a news conference call last week. He was explicit about what will be different, saying, “There will be less opinion, less yelling and fewer celebrity sightings.”

Mr. Al Shihabi and other Al Jazeera representatives say proprietary research supports their assertions that American viewers want a PBS-like news channel 24 hours a day. Originally the new channel was going to have an international bent; now its overseers emphasize how much American news it will cover and how many domestic bureaus it will have, which some see as an effort to appease skeptics.

full story: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/business/media/al-jazeera-america-promises-a-more-sober-look-at-the-news.html?_r=0&adxnnl=1&smid=tw-share&adxnnlx=1376950791-bw9qEaQG7OE/WwFMI bR2w
Click to expand...

A fresh perspective on cable news is a good thing even if if will only be available in half of all US households with cable.

A Fox News panel today was not so open-minded, proclaiming it is still a "mouthpiece for bin Laden...and most Arabs supported bin Laden and killing Americans" (despite overwhelming polling data to the contrary).

roachboy · Aug 19, 2013

way to go, fox assholes.

Log in or Sign up

Politics The 4th Estate - Media....is it truth or fiction? TFP pundits will examine.

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member Donor

ASU2003 Very Tilted Donor

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member Donor

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member Donor

Willravel Getting Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member Donor

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member Donor

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member Donor

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member Donor

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member Donor

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member Donor

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member Donor

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

redux Very Tilted Donor

roachboy Very Tilted Donor

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member Donor

redux Very Tilted Donor

roachboy Very Tilted Donor

Log in or Sign up

Politics The 4th Estate - Media....is it truth or fiction? TFP pundits will examine.

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member Donor

ASU2003 Very Tilted Donor

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member Donor

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member Donor

Willravel Getting Tilted

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member Donor

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member Donor

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member Donor

rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member Donor

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member Donor

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member Donor

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member Donor

Aceventura Slightly Tilted

redux Very Tilted Donor

roachboy Very Tilted Donor

Baraka_Guru Möderätor Staff Member Donor

redux Very Tilted Donor

roachboy Very Tilted Donor

Useful Searches