“It would be absurd for a ideologically-motivated publication to turn down a shot at political influence to preserve its sense of purity…. But it’s still worth noting that this is roughly how the Bush Administration treated the conservative media - rolling out scoops to partisan outlets, wooing right-wing media types with Presidential face-time, bypassing mainstream outlets in favor of talk radio and Fox News, and so forth. And in the long run, it was good for neither the Bushies nor for conservatism. ”

So far, from what I’ve seen, I don’t expect the President to follow his predecessor’s (all-too-easy) media path.

Watch a discussion expanding on this topic between Douthat & Matthew Yglesias (across ideological lines, if you’re not familiar with them) here.

Earlier on this blog: Another warning to the media on the perils of complacemency.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

[Above: Sunrise, Worth County, Missouri, August, 1975. Photo by my father.]

Click here to view the embedded video.

“The old rules said that if there was a defensible argument for not disclosing something to the American people, then it should not be disclosed. That era is now over. Starting today, every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information, but those who seek to make it known.”

Click here to view the embedded video.

This is fantastic news, & should be celebrated by anyone in favor of accountability in all levels of government.

This new tone set by the highest office-holder in the land will hopefully trickle down to the level where NewsChannel 9 reporters & producers live, & will end the end help make our jobs - keeping our government officials honest about what they do in your name - easier.

But it’s not just we journalists who benefit. You, the citizen, do as well.

Many government institutions - state, county, city, & school - have often taken advantage of your ignorance of your rights.

Here’s a link (PDF file) to what your rights are in regards to open records in Tennessee.

& here’s a link (PDF file) to what your rights are in regards to open records in Georgia.

This site has plenty of tools for you to take your own action - not just wait for us to do so.

This development marks a hopeful day for the country.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

“7. The watchdogs are dozing.

The big media companies that once invested in serious accountability journalism are shells of their former selves. The Tribune Co. — in other words, the Los Angeles Times and the Chicago Tribune — has slashed its Washington staff by more than half. Newspaper chains such as Cox are fleeing D.C. altogether.

The end result: There are few reporters in this country doing the kind of investigative reporting that hold government officials’ feet to the fire. Think back eight years to the pre-Iraq war reporting and consider the words of Scott McClellan in his otherwise humdrum book.

“The collapse of the administration’s rationales for war, which became apparent months after our invasion, should never have come as such a surprise,” McClellan wrote. “In this case, the ‘liberal media’ didn’t live up to its reputation. If it had, the country would have been better served.”

Rigorous reporting is even more important when you have one-party rule in Washington. Democrats, like Republicans, are simply less likely to scrutinize a president of their own. The end result here: Don’t expect the Democratic Congress to investigate the Obama administration or hold a bunch of tough oversight hearings. That means the only real check on Obama is the same one it’s always been — the voters.”

George W. Bush’s was (in part) a failed presidency because of enablers in the media & (particularly) his own party.

This is one mistake we should never repeat.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Take a look at this picture, particularly the figure in the lower left corner.

This person appears to be a man.

All we know about him is that some time in 1838 or early 1839, he was on this Paris street.

He appears to be shining his shoes.

& because of that - unbenownst to him - he is the first human being ever to be captured in a photograph. This image took 10 minutes to take, & the man shining his shoes was surrounded by traffic, which was moving too fast for the Daguerrotype to record.

This anonymous gentleman lived the rest of his days not knowing his image was to be captured for all time.

Further reading: this image is #3 on a list of “Top 10 Incredible Early Firsts in Photography.” Go check it out to be amazed at what years we saw the 1st color photograph & 1st color landscape photograph.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

The Alaska governor & former GOP VP candidate e-mails the Anchorage Daily News, & its editor prints her full e-mail & his response, in a classic case study in the ’sausage-making’ that goes behind proper journalism:

Palin’s e-mail:

“Subject: More “mistakes”?

Hello Mr. Doyle and Mr. Dougherty!

Please, say it aint so: did you really allow a story to run in your paper today claiming Levi Johnston is a high school drop out? Did I read that right?

And did you really print a story last week suggesting I had any connection with Sherry Johnston’s activities in the past six months or so and you won’t correct the story? Did I read that right?”

And is your paper really still pursuing the sensational lie that I am not Trig’s mother? Is it true you have a reporter still bothering my state office, my very busy doctor (who’s already set the record straight for you), and the school district, in pursuit of your ridiculous conspiracy?

And, oh, I could go on…

Come on Mr. Doyle and Mr. Dougherty, I so desperately want to have even a tiny bit of faith in the ADN. You’re stripping me of even a shred of faith in your reporting if any of the recent aforementioned strange and untrue reports were taken seriously by the ADN. Would you shed some light on what you’re thinking regarding these false reports you’ve pursued and/or printed?

& some key excerpts from editor Pat Dougherty’s response:

The Daily News has not independently pursued the question of Levi’s educational status; we have relied on the AP to describe it accurately. I can tell you that no question has been raised with the Daily News about the initial story, in September, or the second story, in October, nor has the AP issued a correction. Your question today is the first suggestion I’ve heard that this fact might be in error.

Should I infer from your question that Levi did not drop out of school and will graduate with his class? If so, we will be happy to publish our own correction of the AP story. I think you would also want to contact the AP and ask them to issue a correction as well. Their story was distributed nationally and internationally.

(Paragraph written after this message was otherwise finished.) Literally just this minute I see an AP story, quoting you, saying that Levi has enrolled in correspondence classes. There’s not much detail in the story about what he’s doing and when he started his correspondence work. Does that mean today’s story should have said something like: Johnston dropped out of school last fall but has since started taking correspondence classes?

NOTE: He has owned up to an inaccuracy that has been widely reported.

THE EASY SOLUTION THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE ALREADY: Palin should have publicly corrected the story with the truth. Moving on:

I would also remind you that we called the governor’s office for comment about the Johnston arrest. Your spokesman declined to make any comment on the matter. He could have clarified your relationship and/or interactions with Ms. Johnston, but elected not to. (Curiously, he asserted that it was not a state matter, although the troopers are a clearly state agency, under the direction of the governor’s office, dealing with a quasi-member of the governor’s extended family.)

THE EASY SOLUTION THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE ALREADY: See above. Moving on, to the faux “fake-Trig birth” conspiracy:

“Because we have been amazed by the widespread and enduring quality of these rumors. I finally decided, after watching this go on unabated for months, to let a reporter try to do a story about the “conspiracy theory that would not die” and, possibly, report the facts of Trig’s birth thoroughly enough to kill the nonsense once and for all.

Lisa Demer started reporting. I don’t believe she received any cooperation in her efforts from the parties who, in my judgment, stood to benefit most from the story, namely you and your family. Even so, we reported the matter as thoroughly as we could. Several weeks ago, when we considered the information Lisa had gathered, we decided we didn’t have enough of a story to accomplish what we had hoped. Lisa moved on to other topics and we haven’t decided whether the idea is worth any further effort.

Even the birth of your grandson may not dissuade the Trig conspiracy theorists from their beliefs. It strikes me that if there is never a clear, contemporaneous public record of what transpired with Trig’s birth that may actually ensure that the conspiracy theory never dies. Time will tell.”

THE EASY SOLUTION THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE ALREADY: See above. [Are you detecting a pattern yet?]. Moving on:

“Governor, I would encourage you to go on. I cannot address your concerns if I do not hear them. Perhaps after reading this you will conclude that the facts are not exactly as you thought, or that there was more to these issues than you knew. I hope you see that we have tried hard to practice sound journalism.

…

We remain willing and available to meet with you to discuss these or any other issues.”

It’s obvious to me (& has been ever since she was thrust on the national stage) that the M.O. of the Palin camp is, inexplicably, to simply wish that the story go away. But it has been my experience in the WTVC newsroom that the quicker way to “get an unflattering/untrue story to die” is to be as forthcoming with as much relevant information that you can possibly share publicly. It’s the equivalent of ripping the Band-Aid off as fast as you can, & even the Palin supporters in this newsroom would agree with me on this point.

It’s my view that each of the points she quibbles with would most certainly be put to rest had she been willing to issue a statement or grant an interview (just a single interview) to set the record straight.

I close this post with a lesson to be learned about this episode from, believe it or not, counterinsurgency strategy (which I highlighted last week, here):

“Sometimes the more you protect your force, the less secure you may be.”

What do you think?

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Above, specifically at about 1:20: Joe the Plumber, reporting in Gaza for Pajamas Media TV, suggests that the media shouldn’t be allowed to cover war.

Here’s the direct quote:

“I’ll be honest with you. I don’t think journalists should be anywhere allowed war. I mean, you guys report where our troops are at. You report what’s happening day to day. You make a big deal out of it. I think it’s asinine. You know, I liked back in World War I and World War II when you’d go to the theater and you’d see your troops on, you know, the screen and everyone would be real excited and happy for’em. Now everyone’s got an opinion and wants to downer–and down soldiers. You know, American soldiers or Israeli soldiers.

I think media should be abolished from, uh, you know, reporting. You know, war is hell. And if you’re gonna sit there and say, “Well look at this atrocity,” well you don’t know the whole story behind it half the time, so I think the media should have no business in it.”

Joe obviously doesn’t literally mean all journalists should be banned from a war zone (or does he?) - else why would he be where he is?

I think the point he’s trying to make is that he disapproves of the way journalists cover war. Meaning, not the way he’d do it. Which makes me believe he’d like to see a lot more of this (which turned out so well, don’t you think?) & less of this.

I defy Joe (or anyone else) to tell me where in the current war that American lives were lost directly due to the specific reporting of troop movement in Iraq or Afghanistan. It just doesn’t happen.

FURTHER READING: Conor Friedersdorf over at the (conservative) Culture 11:

“…has The New York Times, to cite one frequent Instapundit target, ever so cynically pandered to its audience by hiring a reporter so little qualified? Has it ever so blatantly sacrificed the quality of information it provides its readers? Even if the answer is yes — which I don’t think it is — it makes Pajamas Media no better than the very news organizations against which it defines itself as a superior alternative. (Imagine if they were running the New York Times…)

It’s worth noting that on other occasions, Professor Reynolds has used his blog to help raise funds for real independent journalists doing invaluable work abroad. This is both to his credit, and a sign that he knows better than to think Joe the Plumber is the best man for the current job. I wish now that he’d either point out the error in my criticism — and I’ll gladly publish or link any rebuttal he offers — or else change course, acknowledging that he got caught up in the moment, as do we all on occasion, but that having thought about it Pajamas Media could find a more qualified individual to execute whatever kind of coverage it seeks from the Middle East… unless all they seek is the unthinking loyalty of an audience driven by ideology — that is to say, the very kind of thing Instapundit has been railing against for years.

Just as I like to engage liberal media outlets rather than denouncing them, taking their basic goodwill as a given and their improvement as a benefit for us all, I intend here to engage the folks at Pajamas Media, in hopes that they’ll see the error of their ways.

I’d very much like to be rooting for them again.”

&:

Bob Owens of Pajamas Media defends Joe:

On the surface, their complaint seems to be that that being a war correspondent — among the most glamorous and dangerous of media assignments — requires a specialized journalism background.

At the risk of bruising the fragile egos of some of these journalists — no, it doesn’t.

See, to me that’s not the issue. Joe has just as much a right to be a journalist as I do, even though I have a degree & he doesn’t. This is what the future of the internet (especially blogging) is all about.

No, what I object to is someone who himself was used as a campaign tool calling out others in a profession that he’s new to as needless. He couldn’t be more wrong about that.

What do you think?

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

(I know, 2nd Kane clip of the day, but it’s as relevant to this post as the other was to the other.)

From FoxNews.com (h/t my Dad):

“Former Miami Herald Editor Tom Fiedler says that a democracy has an obligation to preserve a free press.

“I truly believe that no democracy can remain healthy without an equally healthy press,” said Fiedler, now dean of Boston University’s College of Communication. “Thus it is in democracy’s interest to support the press in the same sense that the human being doesn’t hesitate to take medicine when his or her health is threatened.”

Wrong. & here’s why:

Let’s take Fielder’s analogy of newspapers-as-human-body further.

Say a patient’s leg has gangrene, threatening his life. Rather than cut off the leg, Friedman argues that doctors should leave no stone unturned trying to directly address the gangrene in the leg so that it can get well again.

It’s a classic case of not seeing the forest for the trees, & thus the argument doesn’t have a leg to stand on (heh).

“Freedom of the press” does not mean that newspapers get special treatment. The word ‘press,’ to the Founding Fathers at the time of the writing of the constitution, meant more pamphleteers (Thomas Paine, et al) than actual newspapers. Pamphleteers were the ‘internet bloggers’ of the day. Newspapers as we know them did not exist.

This is all about information, not the means by which said information is distributed.

I think about my relationship with newspapers growing up. Not only did I read them, I also threw them for my 1st job, in 7th & 8th grade. Nowadays I check our local paper online more out of necessity for my job than anything else.

I think about the relationship my stepchildren - now 18 & 20 - have with newspapers. They don’t have one.

Then I think about how *their* kids will view newspapers. Assuming they’re around that long (newspapers, that is, not my stepchildren’s children). They will likely say “why wait for a daily edition providing me with information when I can get that information any time I want, 24 hours a day?”

Newspapers as we know them (actual, physical pieces of paper) are going to die - it’s just a matter of deciding whether it’s sooner or later.

A co-worker has another great analogy that illustrates the tension between the old-old media & the very-very new:

Imagine you & I open up a liquor store. Business is great for a while. But then another liquor store opens at a location that’s way more convenient for most of our store’s customers, providing you with some competition. Oh, & one other thing - they’re giving away liquor for free. Now the task for us becomes try to figure out how to get people to come into our store to still pay money for liquor they can get for free down the street.

That, in essence, is the state of newspapers at the moment.

I’m over the hand-wringing. Every newspaper that hasn’t figured out how to adapt to the new rules of the internet age needs to get out of the way so the entire field of journalism can survive & prosper. Which it can. & will.

It’s not about form. It’s about function. & I find it extremely frustrating that many in the old media haven’t figured that out yet.

What do you think?

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Above: a Marine in Afghanistan in a firefight with the Taliban, May 18th, 2008. Part of the best photographs of the year, according to the Boston Globe.

This one’s not even near the best, either; click here for several jaw-droppers.

(h/t: Andrew Sullivan)

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Above: MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow takes we journalists to school on how to report a conflict of interest.

& it makes you wonder: how often does this happen on cable news & is not disclosed?

Good work, Rachel.

(h/t: David Sirota)

Also note: this is not a ‘left’ or ‘right’ issue, but rather a ‘journalism’ issue.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

New Yorker Senior Editor Hendrik Hertzberg spoke before a group of students last night at Covenant College, up on Lookout Mountain last night during a gathering storm.

The media release promised Hertzberg would “will provide an “autopsy” of the 2008 election, along with a question-and-answer time of dialogue with the audience.“

Which, of course, is why I attended.

But the dissection of campaign 2008 was the warmup act (he pointed out that Obama did better than Reagan in the popular vote, completely ignoring Reagan’s better electoral college showing in 1980 - Hertzberg’s never been a fan of the EC); the main event was a challenge to the professed faith of the audience of about 150. (Hertzberg called it “playing the Village Athiest.”)

After noting the size of the crowd for little-old-him - calling it his “Barack in Denver” moment - & outlining his longtime skepticism for organized religion in general & Christianity in particular, Hertzberg asked for a show of hands.

“How many of you believe in God?”

A majority of hands went up.

“How many of you believe that God is paying close attention to your actions?”

A majority of hands went up.

“How many of you believe that those who don’t believe in God, or subscribe to another religion, but who live good lives & do good works, will still go to hell?”

Again, a majority of hands went up.

“How many of you believe I am going to hell?”

Ditto.

Once he finished outlining & defending what I suppose one could call a “fervent secular progressivism,” he opened the floor to questions.

I asked a politically-related question that he branded - to the titters of the crowd - “more of a thesis than a question,” which in retrospect was so laughably pathetic - overthought & overwrought - I won’t recount it here.

Driving back down the mountain after it was over I realized that this really wasn’t a discussion of politics at all; it was a unique opportunity for many Covenant students (the majority of whom, it’s safe to assume, come from a strong religious background) to be exposed to a point of view they likely hadn’t heard before (kudos should be given to whomever asked him to speak). These students were being forced out of their comfort zone by a man whose logic was razor sharp.

Many students did challenge him. Many were very assured of their beliefs - much like Hertzberg.

& that’s when I came to the conclusion that while Hertzberg could be labelled a consummate elitist, he wasn’t the only one in the room who could be branded as such. These young, impassioned, full-of-faith folks could also be described as elitists.

& the matchup was fairly equal; Hertzberg has likely honed his rhetorical challenges to religion over the years among friends at dinner parties on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, whereas many of the students were still relatively wet behind the ears (due to nothing more than their youth) in defending their points of view.

It made for interesting theater, in a way.

While I found myself agreeing with both sides of the argument on separate occasions, I did feel like I was one of the only people in the room who didn’t neatly fit into either ideology.

Which, of course, made me wonder who the true ‘elitist’ in that room was.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

George Will:

“Because liberals have been even less successful in competing with conservatives on talk radio than Detroit has been in competing with its rivals, liberals are seeking intellectual protectionism in the form of regulations that suppress ideological rivals. If liberals advertise their illiberalism by reimposing the fairness doctrine, the Supreme Court might revisit its 1969 ruling that the fairness doctrine is constitutional. The court probably would dismay reactionary liberals by reversing that decision on the ground that the world has changed vastly, pertinently and for the better. [...]

If reactionary liberals, unsatisfied with dominating the mainstream media, academia and Hollywood, were competitive on talk radio, they would be uninterested in reviving the fairness doctrine. Having so sullied liberalism’s name that they have taken to calling themselves progressives, liberals are now ruining the reputation of reactionaries, which really is unfair.”

Steve Benen reiterates my thoughts on this non-issue from last week:

“I haven’t the foggiest idea what compelled George Will to write such nonsense. It’s not only ridiculous, it neglects to mention to the reader that no one is seriously trying to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.

TNR’s Marin Cogan recently wrote a great piece, noting that she couldn’t find anyone on the left who really wants to reinstate the policy. Cogan explained, “The prospect of being in the opposition often brings out the worst in conservatives — paranoia and self-pity.”

In fact, Will ignores the point, because it would make his column appear ridiculous, but let’s keep in mind that Barack Obama doesn’t want to see the Fairness Doctrine brought back, and both Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have said this isn’t going anywhere in either chamber of Congress. We’re talking about a liberal campaign that exists only in the overactive imaginations of paranoid conservatives.”

.

What do you think?

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

The leftward blog Crooks & Liars is using several examples of hateful, divisive speech overheard on talk radio to (apparently) make a case for why we need to see a return of the Fairness Doctrine.

(Read about the Fairness Doctrine’s history here.)

I have some recommendations & thoughts for both sides of this debate:

This whole debate is stupid & pointless.

1. If you find yourself offended by what you hear on the radio, who or what is stopping you from changing the channel?

2. Whatever program a radio station airs is based on conditions in the marketplace, not on an idea of ‘balance’ or ‘fairness.’ A station will more often than not keep or drop a particular radio program based on its ratings, not on the content of any particular host.

3. To those who spout this fear that the Fairness Doctrine is coming back (Mark Levin is one I hear bring this up quite a bit) or those who constantly gripe about ‘bias in the media’ - you, in my eyes, are no different or better than those who complain about the vitriol on right-wing radio.

4. Boy was this debate ever relevant, say, 20 years ago. Look around you. The internet has revolutionized what we think of as ‘media.’ Do you honestly think that the government is capable enough to pull off imposing some kind of restrictions on the internet in any remotely efficacious way? I didn’t think so.

4a. & that’s why this whole argument is so, so moot. The internet is the great equalizer. That has a far greater impact than any government attempt to regulate ‘fairness’ on the (old or new) airwaves, TV, radio or the internet. Don’t like what you hear, see or read? Start your own radio station! Think the media’s biased? Then get your own website & tell it like it is! Come on in, the water’s fine.

There is a literal mountain of issues that deserve far more attention right now. Let’s put this ‘dumb controversy to bed,’ OK?

Here’s a blog dedicated to keeping the Fairness Doctrine from returning.

FURTHER READING: Michael Medved has a piece in USA Today that challenges an entrenched conservative talk radio subculture:

“The great power of the medium involved its ability to change minds — but that requires drawing significant numbers of listeners who don’t already agree with you.

Some radio stars view media debate as a form of warfare, though the ultimate purpose of war involves the total destruction of the enemy. The most effective broadcasters in the Obama Era won’t try to destroy anybody. But we should make an impassioned effort to convince everybody.”

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

My suspicion that a rumor out there about Sarah Palin not being able to tell if Africa was a country or continent has proved correct.

Click here to read a story about how the man above helped pull a fast one over much of the mainstream media & the blogosphere.

In this job, you always need to be on your guard. & while the whole ‘Africa’ thing certainly played into Palin’s stereotype, the fact that we didn’t have a real live face making these charges didn’t pass the ’smell test’ with me.

Even though a person can write anything they want about anyone on the internet, it is beneficial for anyone to fall on the side of truth - which is essentially what I’ve been trying to tell you for 9 months now.

UPDATE: While I promise to call out any charge that proves to be untrue against her in the future, now that the “Sarah Palin Media” website has linked this story, I want to make sure you’re clear where I stand on the Palin pick.

Kevin Drum:

“Despite all the grief she’s gotten, I continue to think that the selection of Sarah Palin as John McCain’s running mate represents the breaking of a consensual cultural barrier far more fundamental than most people realize. It’s not just that she was inexperienced (Spiro Agnew and John Edwards weren’t much more experienced than Palin when they ran for VP) but that she was — obviously, transparently, completely — uninterested in and uninformed about national policy at nearly every level. We’ve simply never seen someone so completely unmoored from the normal requirements of national office before. She was chosen purely at the level of celebrity, and an awful lot of people seemed to be just fine with that.”

Andrew Sullivan:

“Let’s be real in a way the national media seems incapable of: this person should never have been placed on a national ticket in a mature democracy. She was incapable of running a town in Alaska competently. The impulsive, unvetted selection of a total unknown, with no knowledge of or interest in the wider world, as a replacement president remains one of the most disturbing events in modern American history. That the press felt required to maintain a facade of normalcy for two months - and not to declare the whole thing a farce from start to finish - is a sign of their total loss of nerve. That the Palin absurdity should follow the two-term presidency of another individual utterly out of his depth in national government is particularly troubling. 46 percent of Americans voted for the possibility of this blank slate as president because she somehow echoed their own sense of religious or cultural “identity”. Until we figure out how this happened, we will not be able to prevent it from happening again.”

It’s entirely forgivable for a politician to be elected to office without much experience (see Jackson, Andrew).

It’s completely unforgivable for a candidate to tout that inexperience or lack of curiosity about the world as a virtue.

I will never defend Palin or what she represents until this changes. & I don’t expect it to. She was an abject embarassment to the Republican Party, who only would have succeeded this year by eschewing the approach & style of governing used by its standard bearer, George W. Bush, for 8 years, & who embraced someone who in reality -fatally- encapsulated that failed model.

The quicker the GOP figures this out, the better.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

The Fox News anchor tells it like it is.

& he says what I would tell anyone ready to blame “the media” for ensuring an Obama victory.

You folks who think so give the media far too much power - especially in the age of the internet. Not to mention you give average voters far too little credit.

Look at these numbers!

Pew found two weeks ago that while TV & newspaper use for campaign news among voters was flat this year compared to 2004, the numbers for internet usage TRIPLED from 10% to 33% in the past four years.

A revolution is underway, & if you’re quick to say “it’s all the media’s fault” you’re not only not paying attention to what’s really happening, you’re also not taking advantage of what’s available to you to become your OWN media.

By the way, this is also the reason why any calls for a return to the Fairness Doctrine is a completely moot point. If you hear anyone bring up either side of the debate (Mark Levin can’t seem to stop talking about it), turn the channel & find a better use of your time.

So to sum up,

1. Media=not to blame/credit for the election’s outcome

2. YAY Internet!

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Great advice from George Packer:

“The problem with strategic communications is that the White House that lives by it slowly becomes incapable of dealing with reality. When bad news comes, the impulse is to deny it, and that impulse turns into a mental habit. Eventually, those in power are the last to figure out the truth (in this sense, Katrina was a direct result of the kind of mentality that had already led to disaster in Iraq). The Administration can’t answer the arguments of its critics because it has long since stopped listening to them. It finds itself increasingly isolated, not just from potential supporters, but from the truth.

While researching my piece on the new liberalism in next week’s issue, I read H. W. Brands’s new biography of Roosevelt, “Traitor to His Class.” There’s a section that describes F.D.R.’s press conferences: twice weekly, beginning in the first week of his Presidency, with dozens of reporters crowded into the Oval Office and ground rules that allowed for a surprising degree of candor (though Roosevelt was a masterful manipulator of the press, in part because they were grateful for the access).

President Obama won’t go that far—no modern President would. But I hope he’ll live up to his Election Night promise to listen especially well to his critics, including in the press. He should make himself and his aides more, not less, available to reporters than they’ve been. Not just because I belong to that particular interest group and it would be the democratic thing to do. It’s because I want him to succeed.”

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

I had wondered if this blog’s traffic would taper off after Election Day.

Boy, was I wrong.

Our webmaster checked the post-election day traffic, & found this site had almost 1600 page views!

Thank you so much for your interest!

That means we’ll -for the time being- keep this up & running, at least through Inauguration Day, 77 days from now.

PROGRAMMING NOTE:

I’ll be appearing on “Tennessee Insider” tonight, which airs on WTCI TV-45, the local PBS station (Channel 5 for those of you on Comcast in Hamilton County) at 8:30 (sorry Mom & Dad - I don’t think they post their shows online).

I go in for the taping at 2pm, & between now & then, if you have any thoughts about this historic week, I’d love to hear them!

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

[above: Cabbage Patch Candidate Joe Biden. No, I don't think it looks like him either.]

Click here to view the embedded video.

Above: in New Port Richey, Florida, yesterday.

More Local TV Appearances

On Monday Biden spoke with a local news anchor in Kentucky (watch it here), who asks him about what he plans to do with his Senate seat if elected, & comments on a poll revealing a good chunk of folks in the Bluegrass state still (falsely) believe Barack Obama is a muslim.

Speaking of local TV interviews, Barbara West, the WFTV anchor in Florida whose now famous interview of Joe Biden has been seen by just about everyone on the planet, interviewed John McCain yesterday. Click here to watch, & then come back & tell me what you thought of how she handled McCain vs. Biden. Also, click here to join the discussion on whether or not she was biased.

Biden was in North Carolina yesterday, courting the youth vote. He was in Greensboro & Greenville - again, like we said with Palin, probably the closest any candidate will come to our area.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Click here to view the embedded video.

Above: in Tacoma, Washington.

Today’s episode: Much more on that Florida TV anchor’s “hard-hitting” interview that left the candidate flustered.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Plenty more criticism (for both Biden & the anchor) of the now-infamous WFTV interview.

Read more here, here, here, here, & here. (which links are which? sorry - you’ll have to click on them all to find out. Remember, one of this blog’s missions is to get you to expand your media diet).

This certainly has become an “bias is in the eye of the beholder” moment.

Those on the right would like to paint this as Biden’s “Katie Couric” moment. My opinion: I don’t think so. It’s not like she ’stumped’ him.

The interviewer’s critics say she’s just “regurgitating Fox News talking points.” That could be correct - but she certainly has a 1st Amendment right to ask whatever she wants.

Would an interview go this way with any candidate on any side with an anchor or reporter here at NewsChannel 9? I won’t presume to speak for any of them. Like all of you, they each have their own views on politics, but all of them (admirably, I think) take great pains to be fair to all of our viewers. This business, if nothing else, teaches you to recognize & respect the diversity of opinions & outlooks out there. I will say I do know NewsChannel9’s anchors & reporters well enough to say each of them would be “tough but fair.”

To do otherwise (essentially shutting oneself off from a huge chunk of your desired audience) is nothing but self-defeating.

So is the woman above ‘tough?’ Yes.

But is she being ‘fair?’ Not to at least half her audience.

What do you think?

UPDATE: It’s been revealed that the anchor’s husband is a media consultant from the GOP. That, in my opinion, makes this far more distasteful.

UPDATE #2: I’ve asked my colleagues for comment on this story.

Melydia Clewell, our assignment editor, says:

“I do believe our staff does a great job trying to remain objective, fair and balanced. That said, reporters have actually asked to be un-assigned stories related to GOP/Dem candidates because they don’t believe they can keep their personal viewpoint from affecting the outcome of their reporting. At least they are aware of their biases, but I do hate that we have some folks who admittedly can not escape a partisan mindset.”

Tom Henderson, NewsChannel 9’s News Director (& my boss) says:

“NewsChannel 9’s journalists and manager-journalists rely on the Society of
Professional Journalists code of ethics for guidance in matters like this.
Here are a few of the directives the SPJ code gives to reporters:

— Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others

— Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.

— Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity
or damage credibility.

— Disclose unavoidable conflicts.

— Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist
their pressure to influence news coverage.

Ultimately it is up to viewers and website users to judge the credibility
of reporters and the newsrooms in which they work. NewsChannel 9 welcomes
scrutiny of our practices and methods. We are not perfect, but we do
strive to stay within the bounds of the SPJ code while going the exra mile
so that consumers of our news are more informed and better prepared.

You can read the entire code here: http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
Tom Henderson
News Director
WTVC and newschannel9.com”

John Creel, WTVC Operations Engineer, says:

Because of her husbands job I’m less enthusiastic/impressed/ect. about her Q&A.
She could have been spouting off RNC talking points she didn’t develop on her own.
The questions however are still valid.  Someone should be asking those questions!

Fairness is like the feet of a drunk man, taking a field sobriety test, it varies
with the opinions of those percieving it.  It’s no longer the standard fromwhich we measure abnormalities or deviations.
ee cummings wrote a poem that applies.

“We sit around a ring and suppose

The secret sits in the middle and knows.”

Opinions have always surrounded the truth by hiding somewhere in the middle.

Indeed, John.

What do you think?

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

(above: Biden on the bus in Johannesburg, 1976)

Above: in Suffolk, Virginia on Saturday.

More flak from the controversial local TV interview you can see here. The anchor responds to the criticism.

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

[this post originally appeared on July 25th]

I’ve found what I think is a great example of what the last Vote08 post talks about.

& it has to do with one of my favorite subjects - food.
1 . Read this article from John Schwenkler of the Boston Globe (unfortunately) titled "Eat Republican: How an organic movement born in Berkeley exemplifies conservative values."

2. That article (perhaps it was the title?) raised the ire of one P.J. Glasnick of Newsbusters, who writes a response piece called "Gastronomic Baloney ."

Trouble is, while what’s called for is a dissenting view taking the podium with intellectual points made with respect, check out Glasnick’s tone: it’s the equivalent of throwing rotten fruit from the cheap seats.

3. Read John Schwenkler’s response on his personal blog , which really pins him to the mat in the rhetorical department.

I’ve seen a lot of this type of reaction from the right wing media before; the extent of their rebuttal is to begin with screaming "liberal, liberal, liberal" without going a step further (as, say, a George Will or William F. Buckley would) to point out exactly why the argument has no merit. This is a shame, as gives off the impression that the proponents of conservatism lack the ability to discourse intellectually, when in fact that’s not the case.

The impression I get from a lot of conservative outlets is that the starting point is that all liberals or liberal ideas are inherently flawed, & therefore whatever you hear come out of their mouths must certainly be wrong. [ Of course, many liberals are guilty of the same blanket-generalization of their conservative counterparts.]

There is no such thing as a flawed idea; what becomes flawed is how that idea is put into practice.

I think it’d be far more effective to initially show a person with whom you disagree which points you both can agree with, & build from there. "Look, I know we both want to keep our country safe," "we all want gas prices to come down," "we can agree that the health care system in this country needs some work," etc.

That’s not so hard, is it?

What do you think?

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

TODAY’S EPISODE: Campaigning in Colorado…why Biden’s ‘the forgotten candidate’

Above: at the University of Colorado-Greeley yesterday. (I enjoy doing these “from the crowd” clips to give you a better sense of what it’s like to be there)

The “Forgotten Candidate”

From the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza:

“…unsurprisingly, Palin has dominated the coverage. The press section of Biden’s campaign plane is dominated by young television reporters who don’t get much attention from their producers in New York and Washington. One evening when I was there, several correspondents played Guitar Hero while a crew from the television show “Extra” threw darts at a magnetic board.

On some days, only a single print reporter is covering Biden, and weekly studies of the news by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism note that Biden was the subject of between two and six per cent of all stories each week in September. (Palin was the focus of between fifteen and sixty per cent of a week’s worth of news in that same period.) Pew has noted that Biden is “the virtually forgotten candidate,” someone who “has consistently been an afterthought in the coverage.””

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08

Rethinking the Media’s Role

“…no matter how skeptical we are when we write about bogus allegations, writing about them at all gives them wider circulation. So when Palin questions Obama’s love of country because Obama knows somebody who did something unpatriotic when Obama was 8, our free-market ethos makes us rush to cover her every ridiculous word. We also find ways to convey that this is pure mudslinging and nothing but a cynical campaign tactic, but that doesn’t matter to the McCain campaign. What matters is that we’re writing and talking about this extraneous stuff — and not about the issues that polls say voters really care about.” - Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post

“In effect, columnists, bloggers, talk-show hosts and digital lamplighters have adopted the ethic of the political consultant: what works, works. It did not matter what Palin said. It only mattered how she said it — all those doggones, references to her working-class status (net worth in excess of $2 million), promiscuous use of the word “maverick,” repeated mentions of “greed and corruption on Wall Street” (Who? Be specific. Give examples. Didn’t anyone here go to school?) and, of course, that manic good cheer. Palin knows that the standard is not right or wrong, truth or lie, but the graph that ran under both debaters on CNN, measuring approval, disapproval or, maybe, the blood sugar levels of certain people in their focus group. Things have changed. Might used to make right. Now a wink does.” - Richard Cohen of the Washington Post

“Constantly under the watchful eyes of security, the media wasn’t permitted to wander around inside Coachman Park to talk to Sarah Palin supporters. When reporters tried to leave the designated press area and head toward the bleachers where the crowd was seated, an escort would dart out of nowhere and confront him or her and say, “Can I help you?” and turn the person around. When one reporter asked an escort, who would not give her name, why the press wasn’t allowed to mingle, she said that in the past, negative things had been written. The campaign wanted to avoid that possibility Monday.” - the St. Petersburg Times

Post from: The Blog Formerly Known As Vote '08