|
|
May 19, 2013
|
|
|
|
 The End of an InstitutionPosted on Aug 28, 2008
DENVER—I suppose I should be sad to watch the decline of the once mighty political media, an institution that trained and nurtured me. But that’s not how I feel. For this was the institution that cheered when President Bush took us to war. These were the political reporters who were once transfixed with Barack Obama and are now ripping him to shreds. And these are the journalists who are still so awed by John McCain’s years as a prisoner of war that they won’t dig into his record. This is also the institution that is getting this Democratic National Convention wrong, obsessed with a phony feud between Obama and Hillary Clinton, wasting time interviewing that small but vengeful cult, the die-hard Hillaryites. That vision of the convention is not what’s happening. Rather, Democrats are beginning a process of coming together after the long and intense battle for the nomination. A few more words from Clinton—“he beat me fair and square”—would have completely sealed the deal, but she’s too much of a competitor to say that. By Election Day, the past battles will have been put aside. Luckily, for the good of the Republic, this bad reporting has had little impact on events, unlike the effect it would have had in the past. The mass media have been weakened greatly in the last few years, hurt by a loss of readers, viewers and advertisers and the growing power of the Internet. That came through clearly on the first day of the convention when I saw the Los Angeles Times sharing a workspace with the other Tribune papers. When I was covering conventions for the Times, we had our own big workspace and all kinds of big shots came calling. Advertisement Panelist John Harris, a former Washington Post reporter and editor and one of the founders of Politico, offered a lament for the past. He said “this was a time of despair” for political journalism, threatened as it is by economics and stung by challenges from the growing pack of bloggers who treat once influential political reporters with the same contempt and condescension the mainstream journalists show to their least-favored sources. Harris longed for the days when journalists “thought we were doing important work and having a hell of a lot of fun doing it.” Of course it’s fun—if not intellectually challenging—to be the God-like dispenser of wisdom and to comfortably share your opinions with like-minded colleagues. That has been how political journalism has been practiced for a long time. Beginning with the rise of the mass newspaper press in the late 19th century and of television news in the 1960s, American political and social perceptions were shaped by a relatively small coterie of owners, managers and reporters. If they didn’t choose to report something, it might as well have not happened. For example, most Northern newspapers did not report racial discrimination in jobs, housing and schools for years, leaving their readers ignorant—and shocked by the eventual protests. When I began covering national political campaigns for the Associated Press and later the Los Angeles Times, political developments were filtered through top columnists and reporters and their editors who shaped the news through their generally middle-of-the-road view of the world. The student rebellion, which began in the mid- and late ‘50s, was unrecognized and unreported until it burst upon the country during the Vietnam War. With Web sites such as this one offering a variety of views, the old dominance is fading, and nowhere is this more clear than at this convention. This Internet journalism era is in its infancy, and much of the work is pretty crude and open to criticism. But the movement is tremendously important because it provides America with a variety of voices that have long been silenced. I see the need for those voices when I check the mainstream view of the convention, which is not what I see at the hall. I thought Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s speech Monday was one of the most heroic and moving moments I have ever seen in politics. Gravely ill with a brain cancer, he willed himself to fly to the convention. He spoke powerfully, and it was clear from his words what had brought him on that difficult journey. What drove him on was a cause as well as a candidate. It was health care for all Americans, and when he pledged to be in the Senate to get it passed next year I think every person in the hall prayed he would make it. I know I did. But the moment was relegated in most of the narratives to just a part of the phony Barack-Hillary feud story: Would Teddy help Barack win over the Hillary lovers? Hopefully this was one of last gasps of the old days. I won’t miss them.  TAGS:
|
The Lotto Symbolizes the False Promises of Barracuda Capitalism
Email 
Print
Share
Email to a friend
Newsletter 
Like Us
Follow Us
Get Our Feed
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation | Google+
© 2013 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.
By VinnieTheSnake, September 7, 2008 at 12:12 pm Link to this comment
Please stop! It’s a week later and I’m still getting “alerts” to new comments to this column, and it’s only the two of you arguing over something the rest of us don’t care about!
Report thisBy paul easton, September 7, 2008 at 11:59 am Link to this comment
There is no reason to think that Kristof himself has anything to do with blocking comments, and in fact this one apparantly was posted until it was seen by someone who didnt like it.
Report thisBy Virginia777, September 7, 2008 at 9:09 am Link to this comment
Why do you think he censored your comment?
Why did Alex Cockburn report:
Since March 1 [2006] the New York Times has run seventy news stories on Darfur (including sixteen pieces from wire services), fifteen editorials and twenty-one signed columns, all but one by Nicholas Kristof. Darfur is primarily a “feel good” subject for people here who want to agonize publicly about injustices in the world but who don’t really want to do anything about them.
Report thisBy paul easton, September 7, 2008 at 12:05 am Link to this comment
Virginia I dont agree with you at all and I think it would be fruitless to argue.
Report thisBy Virginia777, September 5, 2008 at 4:57 pm Link to this comment
and sorry, but I don’t think Kristof is decent.
I think he is a mock-liberal, there to drum up support for foreign wars (in the Sudan for example).
I think his presence shows a horrible face of the new New York Times.
Report thisBy Virginia777, September 5, 2008 at 4:54 pm Link to this comment
sorry, I meant to put this link
http://pasadenanewprogressive.blogspot.com/2008/05/war-mongering-in-new-york-times-by.html
Report thisBy paul easton, September 5, 2008 at 4:50 pm Link to this comment
Virginia,
I dont know what are your complaints about Kristof. Your first link refers to the outragious op-ed by Benny Morris. As far as I know this had nothing to with Kristof, and it does not reflect the view of the Times, and publishing it may have been a public service by showing what maniacs the Zionists are.
As for Darfur its true it is an easy target and deflects attention from the genocidal nature of the Iraq war, but recently Kristof had some comments on Israel and Tibet that did not offend me. I have a sense that he may be deliberately pushing the envelope of what he can get away with in the Times. There may be many decent people there who are doing the best they can in that environment.
Report thisBy Virginia777, September 5, 2008 at 4:12 pm Link to this comment
Paul - Nicholas Kristof is a BIG PROBLEM. I have written to the Public Editor of the New York Times to complain about him twice, haven’t heard back.
I have written about his open war-mongering in the New York Times here:
http://pasadenanewprogressive.blogspot.com/2008/07/war-mongering-in-new-york-times-again.html
and Alex Cockburn, of Counterpunch, wrote this article on his suspiciously copius Darfur columns, back in 2006:
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn12042006.html
He is nothing but a war-monger who stirs up hostility and openly asks for combat in his column. Scary!!
Report thisBy paul easton, September 2, 2008 at 8:34 pm Link to this comment
Thanks Virginia. I was thinking of writing the Public Editor about the Georgia coverage but I decided it would be a waste of time. The Times was always very huffy about being criticized, and raising this is going for the jugular. If you would like to try it I’d be glad to hear what happens.
I wanted to repost the comment on Kristof’s blog on Facebook, since it was to his column, but I couldn’t log in. Since I only logged in once before I’m not sure if the problem originates with me or with Facebook. I’d appreciate it if you would like to try to do it.
Report thisBy Virginia777, September 2, 2008 at 8:54 am Link to this comment
re: paul easton being CENSORED by the New York Times
This is VERY disturbing!! and needs to be investigated. I was censored on a comment to a Mike Nizza column (NY Times), I wrote to the Public Editor, and had my comment published.
I urge everyone to fight censorship by writing to the public editor when their comments are censored, or like here, to publish the comment somewhere else.
This is crazy! and has to be fought.
Report thisBy VinnieTheSnake, September 1, 2008 at 1:19 pm Link to this comment
Mr. Easton, is there something other than the Democracy Now, The War and Peace Report on television?
Report thisIf so, please advise.
By VinnieTheSnake, September 1, 2008 at 12:52 pm Link to this comment
The mainstream media reports on what it thinks its customers want to know about. That is how they hope to keep their revenues up.
Report thisConsider how often you click on a story about Paris Hilton and how often you click on a story about Dennis Kucinich. Go back five years and make the same comparison.
Do you care who won the American Idol contest? Do you watch Survivor?
What programs to you TIVO? Is Bill Moyers’ Journal one of them?
While you were in the South visiting did you listen to what those Southerners listened to? Did you listen to those programs with an intimate knowledge of the life of a Southerner?
Consider the 18 million Hillary voters and ask yourself how welcome they feel after being called racist by thousands of posters because they chose not to vote for Obama in the primary.
How satisfied would Obama’s followers be if they were told incessantly to “get over it and move on” even though your candidate got at least as many votes as the opponent?
The Clintons were between a rock and a hard place with the speeches they were instructed to make at this coronation. Fall in line or lose all Party support. If they were whole-heartedly supporting Obama they would not be believed.
The way I see it, the actual racists in the Democratic Party are the 95% of blacks who are voting for a black man with a questionable past and vague goals for the future.
The media doesn’t address this issue. It would rather plaster the story of a candidate’s pregnant, unwed daughter on its pages.
And the Left is hypocritically blaming right-wing family values on this situation that has occurred in millions of families throughout history. Family values will lose to teen-aged hormones every time.
Does the phrase “a woman’s right to choose” not include choosing to continue a pregnancy without ridicule?
By paul easton, September 1, 2008 at 9:53 am Link to this comment
I wish it were true, Shawn, but it seems more like that people are migrating to internet and cable channels for access to MSM. Readers of the blogosphere are an elete I think. Its too much work for an audience thats been conditioned to be passive consumers.
I think its worth pushing Democracy Now as the most comprehensive alternative news source.
Report thisBy Gusto, September 1, 2008 at 9:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The truth is not all 18 million Hillary supporters are still hanging on. Just a few so called hard core are the one hanging on. But their truth is that they are people that NEVER VOTED for a black man and will NEVER. So, now they are still using phony excuses as the reason not to vote for him. These folks will rather vote for someone that is totally opposite to their beliefs than to vote for someone of color. It is time for them to move on and the media to just let them go. The million of new registered voters will replace them. I f Obama wins Hillary could stand a better chance of being nominated for any vacancy on the Supreme Court which will do better for any feminine cause that a VP slot. But these folks cannot understand that. They wanted the Democratic Party to ignore the will of the majority of Democratic voters who voted for Obama. He won the primaries fare and square. Hillary primaries plans failed big time. Now get over it or get out of the way.
Report thisBy Shawn Michel de Montaigne, August 31, 2008 at 3:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
... to be alive. I say that precisely because the MSM is finally (finally) getting its comeuppance. I celebrate the fact that newpaper circulation is on the rapid decline and showing no signs of slowing. I celebrate that the MSM bloviators are finding themselves out on the streets, useless, impotent. (As if they weren’t before ...) I celebrate that those of us who have been silenced are now able to speak or shout or scream. It’s way, way past time.
Conservatism depends on a populace’s ignorance to stay alive. Without that ignorance, it cannot survive. We are watching, albeit very slowly, the death of that outworn philosophy vis-a-vis its greatest exponent—the MSM.
Life is grand….
Report thisBy paul easton, August 31, 2008 at 10:35 am Link to this comment
By Eric L. Prentis, August 29 at 10:05 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The main stream media are bought and paid for by large business corporations whose main goal isnt truth but profits from other their lines of business.
................................................
Right, Eric. Lets be clear about the ultimate cause. It is the ownership, not all so blatantly corrupt as Murdoch and Fox News, but all on the same team.
Witness the total medea blackout of Kucinich in the presidential campaign, repeated for his speech at the convention according to a comment. (The Times’ comment threads are leaking some forbidden information, and I wonder how long they can last.)
Witness the MSM Iron Curtain that descended for a few critical days on the news of how the Georgia War got started. By the time reporters were allowed to say that Georgia had attacked first, it was old news and could be disregarded, allowing the US to touch off the new Cold War.
Following is my comment alluding to this in a thread on reportorial ethics in the Times:
how about this hypothetical situation? you are a foreign correspondent for a major newspaper. on your beat a war has broken out between an ally and a rival of the us. the rival claims that the ally has started the war by unprovoked aggression. your editor tells you that word has come down from the top that the rival’s statements are not to be reported. you realize that if you do not follow this suggestion your future will be clouded and your job might be in jepoardy. what do you do?
And following is how it later appeared in the thread, I believe:
37.
August 28th, 2008 9:45 am
Link
This comment has been removed. Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.
I’m terribly sorry that Mr Sulzberger felt abused, but with all respect I’d like to ask a question. We all deplore totalitarian systems where the government censors the press. But how about a system like the US where the censorship is so invisible that people believe the press is free? Does this not raise totalitarianism to a previously unheard of level?
Report thisBy Virginia777, August 31, 2008 at 8:31 am Link to this comment
Check out here how Soros-sponsored Reporters Without Borders is issuing false information on Iran (hmmm, I wonder why?)
http://hoder.com/weblog/archives/015688.shtml
Report thisHow Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is biased against Iran
By Virginia777, August 31, 2008 at 8:17 am Link to this comment
George Soros funds Reporters Without Borders and Human Rights Watch - pseudo “human rights” groups that facilitate pro-American propaganda.
don’t place any hope with him!! He has helped to dismantle our media.
Report thisBy vonbargen, August 30, 2008 at 9:02 am Link to this comment
Bill Boyarsky is certainly right about the MSM. As to Big B’s lament, I have driven around the south and the midwest a little in the past few years and discovered what people get to hear day in and day out on the radio there. If your contact with the Heartland is at 30,000 feet, you can’t really understand “What’s the Matte with Kansas.”
Report thisGeorge Soros could do the country a big favor by giving millions in Mid-America access to XM/Sirius, so they wouldn’t be stuck with Limbaugh, Boortz, Savage, O’Reilly, Hannity et al when they turn their radios on.
By Julie, August 30, 2008 at 7:36 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
My own view is that the corporate media did itself in by its drumbeat to war in Iraq and continues to show they haven’t a brain in their collective head. I watched with absolute disgust as they were jerked around by John McCain’s political operatives with this head-fake VP action. It was cynical, it was stupid, but it did take the focus off of Barak Obama’s marvelous speech. What a flock of cawing crows following the shiny object the McCain operatives brandished. Morons.
Report thisBy RightWing, August 29, 2008 at 3:25 pm Link to this comment
I guess ABC had some tough questions for Obama at the Hillary/Obama Debate
Report thisBy RightWing, August 29, 2008 at 3:23 pm Link to this comment
DENVER—Police in Denver arrested an ABC News producer today as he and a camera crew were attempting to take pictures on a public sidewalk of Democratic senators and VIP donors leaving a private meeting at the Brown Palace Hotel.
Report thisBy Alan, August 29, 2008 at 12:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The decline of the press, the downsizing of the
Report thisprint press, follows a trajectory from
the broadsheet to the tabloid, from journalism,
to news, to noooz.
By Eric L. Prentis, August 29, 2008 at 11:05 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The main stream media are bought and paid for by large business corporations whose main goal isnt truth but profits from other their lines of business. Nearly all the news we get from radio, television and major newspapers is controlled by Viacom, General Electric, Disney, Time Warner and News Corp. Accordingly, the news that is reported only supports these companies other business/ political interests and those companies who advertise with them. Americans have learned the hard way not to trust the news from main stream corporate media, consequently, their viewer-ship and readership are falling leading to in some cases a drastic reduction in advertising revenue. Propaganda or truth, you cannot have it both ways.
Report thisBy Virginia777, August 29, 2008 at 8:41 am Link to this comment
This lament is ignoring the vast power the newspapers (and web media) hold. People are literally unable to understand any issue unless it is framed (and authenticated) by the press.
Of course this is nothing less than great Power, and that is what has made it so desirable to unsavory factions for use in spreading propaganda.
The fact that the Media has abused this power is undeniable. But the fact that this abuse has greatly intensified in recent years, is under-reported even in this article. We are a lot worse off, in the credibility of our newspapers, than we were 30 years ago.
This is something to Address, not lament!
And speaking of the USC Annenberg School for Communications, what about their dubious “ethics of online journalism” http://www.ojr.org/ojr/wiki/ethics/ - which emphasizes Ownership over any other “ethic”?
In general, their “online media ethics” list makes not a single reference to anything involving how we need to behave as a community.
In supposedly addressing ethics, this list does not reflect our community’s most important one - to treat each other fairly.
Report thisBy JimBob, August 29, 2008 at 7:50 am Link to this comment
If only people were pissed enough to start writing their newspapers and demanding that the AP feed no longer appear therein. The AP has become another organ of the greed-heads who run the corporate media (Murdoch is now on its board of directors??!!) and needs to be retired from service.
Report thisBy Cran Berry, August 29, 2008 at 5:26 am Link to this comment
Journalism, especially political journalism, in the U.S. is dead. All we have are cheerleaders, mostly on the right from what I’ve seen and read. What is taught in our universities is certainly not writing, much less journalism. I suspect it is mostly propaganda. What passes for news, political or otherwise, is primarily spoon fed pap for the masses - car accidents, shootings, fires, etc. - items which may be sensational, but which have little bearing on anyone except those who are victim to them. TV “journalists,” especially, don’t even know what questions to ask, much less how to ask them. Most have only the slightest notion what what constitutes as real story. The failure of journalism is hurting the country.
Report thisBy Big B, August 29, 2008 at 4:20 am Link to this comment
Anyone who has traveled the US in the last few years, and particularly the old south, would be able to tell you why people think the way they do. As you drive through Tenn, Ala, Ga, Fla, Ect, all you hear on the radio and all you read in the papers is an old world conservative view. Everything they hear has a religeous and racist undertone. It’s as though your only allowed to watch Fox news and listen to clear channel broadcasting. One can clearly see how a media system can determine the views of the people in a given demographic area.Hearst realized this, as did Goebbels, and Rupert Murdoch. The people will believe what I tell them to believe, because mine is the only voice they hear.
Report thisScarey, Huh?
By Christopher Robin, August 29, 2008 at 12:04 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
” Those newspapers of the nation which most loudly cried dictatorship against me would have been the first to justify the beginnings of dictatorship by somebody else.”
- Franklin D. Roosevelt
Report thisBy yellowbird2525, August 28, 2008 at 11:10 pm Link to this comment
tragically, the newspapers in the area I live were both owned; & nothing much was ever printed in them; i had to find out about things on the internet; independent media or blacklistednews.com; this or truthout.org; I get emails from Newsmax.com; which I never see other places; interesting I got an email re civil war in Mexico; read it; went back & it had been changed into something for a movie????? democracynow.org; like to watch but not on here til 1am; time.com reports Georgia attacks; all other reports & still reporting that Russia attacked for no reason*****so tired of lies. It would be GOOD to see some good old fashioned TRUTH media for a change; instead of pushing the criminal Clinton’s down our throats as being anything other than the crooks they are.
Report thisBy ocjim, August 28, 2008 at 8:24 pm Link to this comment
I am so sick of the corporate media providing superficial, entertainment-seeking coverage of what they call the news.
The 2000 election saw the media mimic the Rove smears and join with Rove/Bush in skewering Al Gore, while giving “low-expectations” Bush a free ride.
The 2004 election saw the media again go for the smear against John Kerry. It helped spread the spurious Swift-boat attack message ad nauseum, even after the military proved the attacks false.
The corporate media can take a lot of credit for giving us eight years of the plague called George W. Bush as inattentive Americans bought a propped-up Bush image, maintained by Rove and disbursed by the media.
We now have a chance for a serious contender with a message of hope.
What does the media do? It manufactures and promotes what it wants to see as dissent and division in the Democratic ranks, and most so-called journalists have joined a crowd of sensationalists in the newspapers, on television and on the internet.
Does the media actually favor McCain as the next president, evidenced by helping to circulate his petty attacks on Obama, or is it still pandering for an audience?
I am ashamed of what can no longer be called the Fourth Estate but rather the Rich Estate.
Report thisBy Big B, August 28, 2008 at 6:18 pm Link to this comment
Doc Tom’s assesement of obama’s saddleback problem is right on the mark. If he loses, he may look back to find that his appearance there was the begining of his own demise. By attempting to buddy up to the enemy, he has alienated his friends.
Report thisUnfortunatly, Barry has yet to learn that many in the american electorate want to see someone who will stick to their guns, even if they are wrong.(I am not one of them, if you’ve made the wrong choice, I find it an attribute to be able to change your mind) But I fear I am in the minority.
I also share his view on the Clintons. As anyone who reads this blog knows, I would like to see Billary dragged behind a car for their selling out of the democratic party. The damage they have done may prove fatal to the future aspirations of any dimmo candidate. They have taken the party so far to the right, that it may not be able to find it’s way back.
As for the political media, It has not been the same since watergate. The powers that be in our nation bore witness to the true power of a free media when, in 1973-74, two little known reporters were able to bring down a presidency. Major corporations moved quickly to make sure that that outrage would never happen again. The media could not be permitted to ever again empower the common people of the US. Deregulation and consolidation then gutted the media of it’s “fourth estate” stature and now we are stuck with the homoginized, vanilla news business.
Edward R Murrow and Hunter Thompson are doing cartwheels in their graves.
By doc tom, August 28, 2008 at 5:35 pm Link to this comment
I agree with you. Just because Hillary got 18 million votes, does not mean she should continue to get the media spot light. It is Obama time!
Report thisRight!!!!!????????????Not exactly.
In case you have been on vacation, the fued was the STORY. Save the hankie, you are in for a good cry.
The Clinton speeches were so transparent. They were following the scripts that Soros and the others fed them in order to stay in good graces with the power elite. Bill probably had to take a hand full of Xanax to settle his stomach. I don’t think Hillary or Bill convinced that many of the 18 million voters to come over to Obama.
Obama is struggling not because of the media, he has been their darling after all. Obama’s problem is conflicting messages. Trying to pull in so many different groups is troublesome. You can only speak out of so many sides of your mouth.
For example, the Saddleback showdown. His answer to the start of life question just showed how he was trying not to alienate too many voters. Trying to appeal to all is the surest way to defeat.