Darn That Liberal Media, Pt. 237

Anybody who's watched just a few White House press conferences over the past few years knows what an insane kind of theatre they have become. The reporters ask some questions and Scott McClellan responds (answering some and ignoring others, with a form of logic not known to Humans), spinning so hard that most Bush critics genuinely feel pity for him and fear he may soon spontaneously combust. The standouts of these press briefings are Karl Rove's personal hooker Jeff Gannon Helen Thomas and NBC's David Gregory, who are among the few remaining journalists who remember how to ask a substantive question. With most of the media at large having adopted the Fox News model (internalizing GOP talking points, presenting everything in a marketable package, personality over substance) of "journalism", it's always good to have a few left who are to the task.

On that note, Helen Thomas has an excellent article in The Nation entitled "Lap Dogs Of The Press" in which she rails against her colleagues for this behavior, noting that they "became an echo chamber for White House pronouncements" in the buildup to war (call it Judy Miller disease). Highlights-

Of all the unhappy trends I have witnessed--conservative swings on television networks, dwindling newspaper circulation, the jailing of reporters and "spin"--nothing is more troubling to me than the obsequious press during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. They lapped up everything the Pentagon and White House could dish out--no questions asked.

Reporters and editors like to think of themselves as watchdogs for the public good. But in recent years both individual reporters and their ever-growing corporate ownership have defaulted on that role. Ted Stannard, an academic and former UPI correspondent, put it this way: "When watchdogs, bird dogs, and bull dogs morph into lap dogs, lazy dogs, or yellow dogs, the nation is in trouble."...

...By contrast, after the White House lost its credibility in rationalizing the pre-emptive assault on Iraq, the correspondents began to come out of their coma, yet they were still too timid to challenge Administration officials, who were trying to put a good face on a bad situation...

...It is past time for reporters to forget the party line, ask the tough questions and let the chips fall where they may.

And Eric Boehlert at the Huffington Post notes that the GOP has largely dictated the terms of the national media dialogue-

...Schumer's early port press conferences were not unlike the countless other Q&A's Democrats have held over the last six years; press conferences that raised serious questions about the policies and competency of the Bush White House, and press conferences that for the most part were completely ignored by Beltway media elites. The only, only, only reason the port story broke big was because Republicans turned on the White House. That's what made it newsworthy. Throughout the Bush presidency there's been a very simple formula for defining what's news -- if Republicans say it's news, than it is. Democrats are largely irrelevant. (Yes, Democrats are the minority party, but being in the minority didn't stop reporters from camping outside GOP Congressional offices during the Clinton years, eagerly amplifying whatever allegation the caucus had hatched the night before.)...

He notes the press still refuses to call Bush "unpopular"... despite record low approval ratings.

Finally, Keith Olbermann was interviewed on C-Span this weekend (actually watched the full thing- great interview) and confirmed what we all knew about how the corporate control of media dictates content. Olbermann is no doubt tired of being surrounded by people like Russert, Matthews, and Carlson who could easily fit in at Fox News. He notes at one point that-

There are people I know in the hierarchy of NBC, the company, and GE, the company, who do not like to see the current presidential administration criticized at all.

Anybody who knew anything about American history and stepped out at any point in American history and got an assessment of this presidential administration would say, yes, I don’t know how much they need to be criticized, but they need to be criticized to some degree.

There are people who I work for who would prefer, who would sleep much easier at night if this never happened.

Careful Keith, or they'll pull a Donahue on you.

We also see this lazy media bias in effect on the censure story, already jumping to the "Feingold is crazy" conclusion without even bothering to understand the most basic aspects of his decision (CNN's Soledad O'Brien asked him why not wait for the Intelligence Committee investigation, when in fact they voted not to even do one). I don't want the media to take sides, that's not their job. It is their job, however, to present the facts honestly and not allow politicians to spew propaganda without it being pointed out and/or corrected where necessary. The 'mainstream' media has failed in this regard and that's, sadly, why most young people get their news from Jon Stewart who has no incentive to spin for them.