Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 04-02-2008, 11:20 PM
thouartgob thouartgob is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 765
Default Re: MSM = Media Supporting McCain?

I think that Ana Marie's point about pundits name dropping is true but less than half the story. ACCESS is the story and it is more important than accuracy because the press is a money making affair it will need a consistent influx of names and personalities. Being good at your job might get you a Pulitzer but eventually you will fall prey to the bean counters ( as we all will if we want be heaven bound, Saint Peter CPA) . Knight Ridder, who utterly shamed the establishment press, has been sold off to Mcclatchy and I fear any professional clout they had will be watered down. The only clout left is who you can get an interview with. Access is important and reporters and the media have to have it but to I will put a bit more trust in an outfit that works on the outside and doesn't have as much baggage then some outfit well stocked with names but with a small but discernible stench of power.

I also agree with Ms Cox about the mutual back-scratching that goes on with McCain and the press. As was pointed out in a previous diavlog he makes their job much easier. But I found her description of a reporter making points with McCain about the bears a bit naive. McCain will cop to not knowing something or not being completely truthful and maybe even concede a point or 2 but understand it will not change anything. He will say "woops I messed up" and move merrily along.

I disagree with a previous commenter her skills are sharp and her deconstruction of some of Glenn's more strident declarations were apt but she seemed a little to ready to despin lefty greenwald.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-02-2008, 11:25 PM
thouartgob thouartgob is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 765
Default Re: Thanks, Ana!

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulL View Post
I noticed that the biggest bloggingheads d*ckweeds Glenn Greenwald and Eric Alterman will only talk to people on bloggingheads who agree with them or they can easily bully.
I heard Glenn on Hugh Hewitt and he was not at all confrontational.

I would love to see Glenn and Eric against Ann Althouse, Jonah Goldberg or Byron York.
Alterman was paired off with york already, not that exciting, Alterman v Drezner was better. Yglessias and Cox would have been a better combo I think.

Last edited by thouartgob; 04-02-2008 at 11:26 PM.. Reason: bored
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04-02-2008, 11:34 PM
uncle ebeneezer uncle ebeneezer is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,332
Default Re: Thanks, Ana!

I gotta admit that as a very liberal person, I love guys like Alterman and Glenn (and Rosa and Heather too) because they don't back down and they have more than enough intelligence to hold their own against any conservative. They may not be the most likeable guys in the warm n' fuzzy way, but if more liberals and progs acted this way the idea of Liberals being weak wouldn't last long.

I would sum this diavlog up as "GG calls AMC out on being a McCain shill. AMC's defense is rather unconvincing."

On a side note Glenn looks like a serial killer, the way he stares at the screen.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04-02-2008, 11:41 PM
edhesq edhesq is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 10
Default Iran-al Qaeda link first pointed out by 9/11 Commission

Iran - al Qaeda link was first pointed out by the much vaunted 9/11 Commission.

From TIME, July 16, 2004:

9/11 Commission Finds Ties Between al-Qaeda and Iran
By Adam Zagorin and Joe Klein

Next week's much anticipated final report by a bipartisan commission on the origins of the 9/11 attacks will contain new evidence of contacts between al-Qaeda and Iran—just weeks after the Administration has come under fire for overstating its claims of contacts between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

A senior U.S. official told TIME that the Commission has uncovered evidence suggesting that between eight and ten of the 14 "muscle" hijackers—that is, those involved in gaining control of the four 9/11 aircraft and subduing the crew and passengers—passed through Iran in the period from October 2000 to February 2001. Sources also tell TIME that Commission investigators found that Iran had a history of allowing al-Qaeda members to enter and exit Iran across the Afghan border. This practice dated back to October 2000, with Iranian officials issuing specific instructions to their border guards—in some cases not to put stamps in the passports of al-Qaeda personnel—and otherwise not harass them and to facilitate their travel across the frontier. The report does not, however, offer evidence that Iran was aware of the plans for the 9/11 attacks.

The senior official also told TIME that the report will note that Iranian officials approached the al-Qaeda leadership after the bombing of the USS Cole and proposed a collaborative relationship in future attacks on the U.S., but the offer was turned down by bin Laden because he did not want to alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia. [Excerpt]

Last edited by edhesq; 04-02-2008 at 11:55 PM.. Reason: Change to more specific title
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04-02-2008, 11:41 PM
rcocean rcocean is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,077
Default Re: Thanks, Ana!

What a perfect pairing. /sarcasm off/

A shallow, obnoxious wingnut vs. a shallow, completely conventional, bubble headed liberal who never had an original thought in her life.

Judas Priest. Where are Bob and Mickey?

Last edited by rcocean; 04-03-2008 at 08:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 04-02-2008, 11:48 PM
Incompetence Dodger Incompetence Dodger is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 45
Default Re: MSM = Media Supporting McCain?

Quote:
Originally Posted by garbagecowboy View Post
Doesn't the fact that the reporters, who are supposedly so chummy with McCain, went onto the Sunday talk-shows to expose his "gaffe" as a deliberately misleading statement, somewhat undercut his point that reporters cannot be genuinely critical of McCain since they love him so much?
I think the point is not whether the press called McCain on his "gaffe" or not, it's that it ended up being more-or-less a one-day story. If the rules that apply to the other candidates also applied to McCain, surely it would have snowballed into a multi-day frenzy, with Sam 'n' Cokie prattling on about the "new and troubling questions" this raises about McCain's fitness to be President, how it strikes at the very heart of his candidacy, etc, etc, eventually becoming a central, ongoing part of the narrative about him (cf., Rev. Wright/Tuzla sniper fire).

Greenwald and AMC didn't really lay out the options as well as they might have in the section you linked to. If I've teased it out correctly, I think Greenwald contended that the two (and only two) possible interpretations is that a) McCain is deliberately trying to conflate Sunnis and Shi'ites into a single "the enemy" in the public's mind (pushing on an open door, IMO), or b) he genuinely doesn't know (or care) about the difference and has conflated them in his own mind. AMC was trying to say that it may have been a simple slip of the tongue, possibly because c) he has Iran fever (and the only cure is more cowbell), or d) he's exhausted from the campaign and was on auto-pilot. Personally I think it was e) all of the above (not really, I don't think he's devious enough for a)). The larger point, obviously, is that all of those possibilities reflect very badly on McCain, and by all rights should have sparked a media firestorm.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 04-02-2008, 11:57 PM
daveh daveh is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 37
Default Re: MSM = Media Supporting McCain?

How many of these comments have been posted by Glenn Greenwald?

I don't think his problem is going to be having too many friends.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 04-03-2008, 12:09 AM
Incompetence Dodger Incompetence Dodger is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 45
Default Re: MSM = Media Supporting McCain?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Adam:
One final point that was neglected by both Glenn and Ana Marie: Whatever else one might think about McCain, he deserves credit for his understanding of the media and how to deal with them. There's a bit of cynicism in that observation, to be sure, but there's also some unalloyed respect.
Agreed (on both the cynicism and the respect). It would be next to impossible for the press not to be enamored of Obama for any number of reasons; McCain has had to work much harder for for the McLovin'.

The kid-gloves treatment McCain gets (so far) always reminds me of this. It applies to all reporters and all politicians, but it seems particularly apropos to McCain.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 04-03-2008, 12:26 AM
aboutthemonkey aboutthemonkey is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1
Default Re: MSM = Media Supporting McCain?

This conversation was stunning. AC lost all credibility with me. Seemed to me that she took every opportunity to weasel around criticisms of McCain. Furthermore, she didn't seem to have the knowledge of the Al Qaeda gaffe I expected her to have. I don't know her background and was surprised at the end when she implied she had a journalism background. Really?

I acknowledge GG is aggressive occasionally, and sneaks in a bit of hyperbole here and there (which she called him on several times), but in the sense of the debate I think he clearly made his case.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 04-03-2008, 12:35 AM
rcocean rcocean is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,077
Default Re: MSM = Media Supporting McCain?

For your information, Mr. Greenwald has written a New York Times bestselling book on executive authority, broken a story on his blog about wiretapping that led to front-page stories on most major newspapers in the country, and Russ Feingold read from my blog...
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 04-03-2008, 01:11 AM
thouartgob thouartgob is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 765
Default AMC channels David Broder

There is a hiccup and an ungodly presence descends into Ms Cox very soul.

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/988...8&out=00:32:05

Now Mccain's speech was a good one and his resume gives his speechwriter's words the air of authenticity that Shrub couldn't match in a millennium but it has as much weight as bush's similarly timed/themed "humble foreign policy" declaration. Sometime in a year or 2, if McCain wins, I fear we will indeed find that his gaffe had much more to do with the conduct of his foreign policy than any pre-election posturing.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 04-03-2008, 01:15 AM
Tom Wittmann Tom Wittmann is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 25
Default Re: MSM = Media Supporting McCain?

Cox is more likable, but Greenwald's points stick, although he tends to overstate.

Why did Hillary & Tuzla get so much more coverage than McCain & Iran/al qaeda? Both were important mistakes that say someting about the candidates, yet only Hillary was asked to explain herself, and only the coverage of Hillary suggested that maybe a character problem was in play.

Cox's suggestion that McCain was simply mis-speaking and Greenwald's explanation that McCain was deliberately misleading are both plausible explanations. How does Cox explain her far more favorable take? Because she knows McCain!!! That alone made Greenwald's case rather nicely.

Personal character judgements hopelessly advantage the charming candidate who pals around. Of course reporters are more generous in their assessments of friends, reporters are human like the rest of us. Cox is right; friends can be adversarial, but friends are <em>generous</em>. Friends <em>trust</em>. Very human, but it gets in the way.

In this diavlog Greenwald is right. Cox is exceptionally well-spoken, but she is trying to square a circle. I certainly understand why. McCain seems to have a terrific personality. I'd like to be close to him too.

I am so tired of fawning coverage of charming candidates.

Last edited by Tom Wittmann; 04-03-2008 at 01:24 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 04-03-2008, 05:37 AM
johnmarzan johnmarzan is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Quiapo
Posts: 358
Default Re: MSM = Media Supporting McCain?

Of course, it is impossible to imagine iran aiding al queda and sunni baathists with arms and money to defeat a common foe, and at the same time doing the same thing to shiite militias in the south.

and of course, it was impossible for saddam to have had a connection or relationship with a sunni group like al queda before 9/11 or any other terrorist organization in the region against a common enemy like the US or Israel.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 04-03-2008, 05:43 AM
johnmarzan johnmarzan is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Quiapo
Posts: 358
Default Re: MSM = Media Supporting McCain?

MSM = media SUPPORTING mccain?

Bloggingheads editors and Greenwald are both wrong.

The Media does like Mccain, but they don't support his candidacy, his positions, and his party.

Barack on the other hand...


For Republicans, if the want to be treated more fairly by the MSM, be more accessible. For democrats like obama, no need to follow that rule.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 04-03-2008, 06:06 AM
Joel_Cairo Joel_Cairo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cambridge MA
Posts: 198
Default Re: MSM = Media Supporting McCain?

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnmarzan View Post
Of course, it is impossible to imagine iran aiding al queda and sunni baathists with arms and money to defeat a common foe, and at the same time doing the same thing to shiite militias in the south.

and of course, it was impossible for saddam to have had a connection or relationship with a sunni group like al queda before 9/11 or any other terrorist organization in the region against a common enemy like the US or Israel.
Of course it's possible, it's just not very meaningful, as every rational actor in the world plays "enemy of my enemy" games. See, for example, the recent Clemons/Cole matchup or this classic Aslan/Lake vlog (particularly the "engagement" argument). IMO, those two episodes contain BHTV's densest pound-for-pound concentration of Iran FP expertise, from every possible angle (Clemons' beltway realism, Cole's academic progessivism, Aslan's impassioned internationalism, Lake's informed neonconism)*. The consensus that emerges w/r/t theis whispy spider-web of ties between AQ's network and the whole anti-America/Israel ME pantheon is "so what?" Saddam was always trying to burnish his street cred among the "cool kids", but was all talk. Iran is funneling money to virtually every side of every conflict because their interest is in chaos. It's not like we can make Saddam deader, and it's not like we have any actionable move to make against Iran, so let them squander their resources.

The only people in the world who think these AQ links are meaningful in any way are employed by NRO and the Weekly Standard, and therefore have enormous reputational capital invested in finding "Ahas!" proving that everybody they've ever advocated bombing is, or has been, connected to AQ. Are we eventually going to launch a war on ourselves for supporting OBL against the Soviets?

*Also, if you're digging through the archives, check out the Spack/Lake combo.
__________________
Full Disclosure: I work for BhTV.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 04-03-2008, 06:35 AM
johnmarzan johnmarzan is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Quiapo
Posts: 358
Default Re: MSM = Media Supporting McCain?

Quote:
Iran is funneling money to virtually every side of every conflict because their interest is in chaos. It's not like we can make Saddam deader, and it's not like we have any actionable move to make against Iran, so let them squander their resources.
i think the mccain misspoke when he said iran is training al queda. but i believe iran has aided al queda with arms and money to do their damage, even against their fellow shiites.

Quote:
The only people in the world who think these AQ links are meaningful in any way are employed by NRO and the Weekly Standard, and therefore have enormous reputational capital invested in finding "Ahas!" proving that everybody they've ever advocated bombing is, or has been, connected to AQ. Are we eventually going to launch a war on ourselves for supporting OBL against the Soviets?
the reason why the US coalition invaded iraq is because of:
a) WMD
b) Saddam's connection with terror groups.

not because there's a link between 9/11 and iraq. not because there's an al queda sanctuary in iraq.

because with WMDs, all you need to do is pass it along to a terror group and they'll take the blame (credit) for using WMDs against the US.

of course, by the time the US invaded iraq, there were no more WMDs to be found.

but i do believe that if saddam cooperated with the UN inspectors during the 90s and was declared WMD-free by the clinton admin, the US would have never invaded iraq, even if saddam is a thug and has some links to terror orgs.

Last edited by johnmarzan; 04-03-2008 at 06:40 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 04-03-2008, 06:42 AM
johnmarzan johnmarzan is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Quiapo
Posts: 358
Default Re: MSM = Media Supporting McCain?

Quote:
The only people in the world who think these AQ links are meaningful in any way are employed by NRO and the Weekly Standard, and therefore have enormous reputational capital invested in finding "Ahas!" proving that everybody they've ever advocated bombing is, or has been, connected to AQ. Are we eventually going to launch a war on ourselves for supporting OBL against the Soviets?
Or against WMD-posssessing Pakistan? :lol:
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 04-03-2008, 06:55 AM
Joel_Cairo Joel_Cairo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cambridge MA
Posts: 198
Default Re: MSM = Media Supporting McCain?

johnmarzan-

I agree with most of what you posted above. Maybe I was too quick with my initial reply to you, because in retrospect I don't think I was really responding to what you were actually saying.

My whole point was the sheer inanity of declaring that any nation who has any ties whatsoever to terrorism is on our hit-list. It's a totally irrational posture to take because:
1. It's facially hypocritical (did someone say Saudi Arabia?)
2. Every nation on earth qualifies if you connect enough dots (call it the "6 degrees of terrorism").

In essence, it's an "a-strategic" strategy, because such boldly Manichean reductionism ties our hands at the same time as it forces them. We end up looking like weak Maliki giving an ultimatum to a much stronger Sadr (or HRC offering Obama VP, for that matter). Our choices become either to play into the hands of jihadists by bankrupting ourselves with ever multiplying fronts of the War on Terror or to blatantly undermine our own credibility by not following through on a tough-guy stance that was untenable to begin with.
__________________
Full Disclosure: I work for BhTV.

Last edited by Joel_Cairo; 04-03-2008 at 07:17 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 04-03-2008, 07:02 AM
Joel_Cairo Joel_Cairo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cambridge MA
Posts: 198
Default Re: MSM = Media Supporting McCain?

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnmarzan View Post
Or against WMD-posssessing Pakistan? :lol:
Or against the new Iraq for having a puppet gov't containing proteges of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard (a terrorist group now, don't forget)?

Or England for nurturing the 7/7 bombers and allowing them the benefit of state social services?

Or against France for granting Khomeini refuge in 1978 after he left Iraq?

Or against China for doing business with the Sudan and Burma?

Or for Columbia University for inviting Ahmedinejad to give a lecture?

It's lunacy.
__________________
Full Disclosure: I work for BhTV.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 04-03-2008, 07:29 AM
nojp nojp is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: rochester ny
Posts: 30
Default Mrs. Cox reminds me of Eli Lake

just the feeling i get following her logic
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 04-03-2008, 09:00 AM
deebee deebee is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 136
Default Re: MSM = Media Supporting McCain?

Ana's reply that she was not asking for advice is a typical Men are from Mars, Women from Venus example. Although interesting, this diavlog was a bit painful to watch because of that tone. He was a bit ponderous - she was dismissive and, as Otto said, way too snippy. I generally like these two, but they should try to be a tad more civil to each other.

I also agree with Twin Swords that the SNL Hillary/Obama skits diffused the uneven coverage for a while since it obviously hit a chord with a lot of voters and proved embarrassing to the press, but that seems to have pretty much returned back to previous levels -- guess that the MSM just can't help itself.

As for the person that said that the media can't avoid being enamored with Obama -- I think that they should try really, really hard to either not be or to hide that fact. When an extreme bias is detected in the Press (MSNBC for example) they lose credibility and democracy really suffers.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 04-03-2008, 09:21 AM
Joel_Cairo Joel_Cairo is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Cambridge MA
Posts: 198
Default Re: MSM = Media Supporting McCain?

Quote:
Originally Posted by deebee View Post
As for the person that said that the media can't avoid being enamored with Obama -- I think that they should try really, really hard to either not be or to hide that fact. When an extreme bias is detected in the Press (MSNBC for example) they lose credibility and democracy really suffers.
Indeed. It's much better for a news outfit to pose as "fair and balanced" and launder its editorializing through a "no-spin zone", in order to maintain plausible deniability if accused of bias, and just matter-of-factly insist "we report; you decide."

Not that I watch much cable news, but I'd much prefer a station that wears its partisan slant on its sleeve over one which hides it so as to more easily brain-wash those naive enough to believe in journalistic objectivity.
__________________
Full Disclosure: I work for BhTV.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 04-03-2008, 09:51 AM
deebee deebee is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 136
Default Re: MSM = Media Supporting McCain?

Quote:
Joel Cairo:
I'd much prefer a station that wears its partisan slant on its sleeve over one which hides it so as to more easily brain-wash those naive enough to believe in journalistic objectivity.
Of course I should have included Fox in with MSNBC -- few are actually fooled by their false sloganeering. Although I have to say that having given up on MSNBC, I occasionally flip to Fox (can't believe this is happening) and they do currently offer more objectivity regarding the Democratic race than I have seen on that channel before. Also their technical primary-night number crunching is actually more detailed than the other channels.

Having said that, I'm extremely suspicious of their sudden objectivity -- it does seem forced. I believe that they are actually more interested in keeping the race going than in offering a fair assessment of either Democrat.
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 04-03-2008, 09:59 AM
deebee deebee is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 136
Default Re: MSM = Media Supporting McCain?

Those who are tired of or disillusioned with cable news channel political coverage should check out Public Televisions "Washington Week in Review" on Friday nights (1/2 hour - usually 8pm EST). It's probably too low key for a lot of cable watchers but I always feel that I get the straight scoop from that show. Some regular participants are Doyle McManus, Karen Tumulty, Dan Balz and other respected, veteran reporters.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 04-03-2008, 10:33 AM
johnmarzan johnmarzan is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Quiapo
Posts: 358
Default Re: MSM = Media Supporting McCain?

Quote:
Indeed. It's much better for a news outfit to pose as "fair and balanced" and launder its editorializing through a "no-spin zone", in order to maintain plausible deniability if accused of bias, and just matter-of-factly insist "we report; you decide."
Hillary supporter Ed Rendell said FOX was the fairest in covering Barack and Hillary.

I live outside the US and have been a regular Special Report w/ Hume watcher. I think they've been fair to the 3 remaining candidates.

as for the O'reilly factor, to criticize it for it's "bias" is just silly. it's an opinion program, and either you like his viewpoints or you don't, just like olberman and matthews. if you don't, then don't listen to his opinions.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 04-03-2008, 11:21 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: MSM = Media Supporting McCain?

johnmarzan:

Quote:
Hillary supporter Ed Rendell said FOX was the fairest in covering Barack and Hillary.
Hard to believe you find any credibility in that. To your credit, you demonstrate awareness of Rendell's leanings. To your detriment, you appear to have ignored why he might have said that. Hint: endless looping of Wright clips, to the point where even Chris Wallace felt embarrassed. Of course Rendell is going to praise Fox -- they're a big help in wielding the hatchet.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 04-03-2008, 11:22 AM
Bloggin' Noggin Bloggin' Noggin is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 893
Default Re: MSM = Media Supporting McCain?

I was struck by Ana's suggestion that the top bloggers should try being reporters for a while.
What struck me first was the thought that novelists and poets might well wish their critics could try writing a novel or a poem themselves before they criticize. But novelists and poets are not supposed to be the primary audience of novels and poems -- they are supposed to be writing for other people. And most novelists and poets seem to realize that explanations after the fact about why their characters didn't come to life or why their rhymes are so forced and plaintive pleas to understand just how difficult it is to find a rhyme for "orange" just don't cut it as answers to the critic. The question is whether you have succeeded in doing what you set out to do and whether what you set out to do was valuable from the point of view of your intended audience. Reporters often react to media criticism in precisely these defensive ways -- understandably, but for other writers, such reactions would be professionally beyond the pale. The poet is supposed to weigh the criticism he gets, decide what part of it he thinks is right, dismiss what's wrong or irrelevant, and try to do better next time. There's no room for excuses. Reporters seem to be fairly new at taking criticism -- at least criticism outside the reporters' club. The web has opened them up to all sorts of criticism (much of it highly biased of course) directly from their audience. I think other writers, though they don't like harsh criticism are pretty happy to find out how their writings are affecting their actual audience (not just this reviewer or that). Reporters don't seem to like being judged by results, but maybe their skin will toughen a bit and they'll be able to take the constructive criticism and slough off the rest.

At the same time, I think Ana has a point. Sometimes the blogger critics go beyond judging the results and start speculating about specific causes of those results in a particular article -- conspiracies or intentional spinning, for example. When seeking explanations for biased or otherwise deficient coverage, an understanding of how the media actually work would indeed be helpful. In some cases, establishing such explanations would require interviewing the reporter and his coworkers and constructing a "story behind the story." We saw a bit of this in Glen's last diavlog (with Ben Smith): a fluffy story damaging to Edwards emerges from Politico. Glen notes that one of the backers of Politico is a Republican, and he suggests a causal connection without establishing how that causal connection actually worked.
If Glen had been more familiar with how Politico or other such organizations actually work, he might be more wary of jumping to conclusions.

On the third hand, though, there are genuine biases in the media which don't require the critic to get into the specifics of how this particular story emerged. One important bias is the natural bias of reporters (and humans generally) in favor of narrative. If Obama captures a string of states which favor him, that shows he has "momentum" and if Hillary then beats him in two states where she was always at a big advantage, then she has stopped his momentum. But this could be entirely an illusion. If they had all voted on the same day, they might have voted roughly the same way, yet there would be no narrative, no momentum. To point out that this bias is operating in a story or group of stories, you don't need to do the kind of investigation into the background of the story that you'd need to establish the kind of motivated intentional bias that Glen seemed to charge Politico with.
I've seen some reporters personalize such criticisms too much. Rather than considering whether they may have the unconscious bias imputed to them by the critic, they defend themselves against the claim that they consciously and intentionally biased the story and they get very upset.

So long as blogger critics stick primarily to criticizing the product from the point of view of how well the media are informing the public and try not to speculate too much about how far the bias they detect is conscious and intentional, they are providing a service to reporters and the public. The better, more responsible critics will also not just assume that something damaging to their candidate or party may not represent bias. But even the less sophisticated critics who aren't so careful can be useful as raw data for the reporter, so long as he doesn't take it too much to heart.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 04-03-2008, 11:25 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: MSM = Media Supporting McCain?

Quote:
Originally Posted by daveh View Post
How many of these comments have been posted by Glenn Greenwald?
That post sets a new record for mindless obsession.

I'll be the first to say that sockpuppetry is abhorrent, particularly if done by a someone who already has a well-known platform. However, the author of that post is in serious need of a life.

Any idea whether Greenwald ever responded to the charges? (I could not bear to follow all the links in the accusatory post; the first few all seemed to point to others just piling on.)
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 04-03-2008, 11:41 AM
Bloggin' Noggin Bloggin' Noggin is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 893
Default Re: MSM = Media Supporting McCain?

Quote:
Originally Posted by deebee View Post
Those who are tired of or disillusioned with cable news channel political coverage should check out Public Televisions "Washington Week in Review" on Friday nights (1/2 hour - usually 8pm EST). It's probably too low key for a lot of cable watchers but I always feel that I get the straight scoop from that show. Some regular participants are Doyle McManus, Karen Tumulty, Dan Balz and other respected, veteran reporters.
I tend to hate that show because it's so damned scripted (which isn't to say I refrain from watching it). Essentially, it's a series of reports from different journalists about their own beat masquerading as a conversation. Despite all the screaming and the silly gimmicks (like rating scandals from 1 to 10), I'd really rather watch McLaughlin. Of course, I prefer BloggingHeads to either one (by a mile).
I also find Gwen Ifill too reflexively cynical about politics. Her attitude could be good if it were in stark contrast to the bias of the reporters she talks to -- but it's just the bias that all political reporters seem to have. If a politician takes a certain position, it's just assumed that his doing so is all about "positioning" and has nothing to do with the politician's actual beliefs. Cynical explanations are certainly sometimes right -- Obama and Clinton don't really believe NAFTA is the main source of Ohio's ills. I'd just like them to recognize that sometimes politicians say what they say at least in part because they believe what they are saying.
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 04-03-2008, 01:20 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: MSM = Media Supporting McCain?

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnmarzan View Post
as for the O'reilly factor, to criticize it for it's "bias" is just silly.
Silly? More like accurate, as you acknowledge.

What would be silly would be calling it fair and balanced.

Fox News is a cable news network based on the model of right-wing talk radio. Nothing more, nothing less. It's basically the Rush Limbaugh show.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 04-03-2008, 01:26 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: MSM = Media Supporting McCain?

Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Any idea whether Greenwald ever responded to the charges?
He did, and he denied them. He says that some comments were left by his boyfriend, which explains the IP addresses.

Here is one such denial:

Quote:
A new accusation is that I've been engaging in so-called "sock puppetry" by leaving comments in response to posts that attack me under other names., i.e., that I use multiple names to comment and the same comment was left at several blogs by the same IP address under different names.

Not frequently, I leave comments at blogs which criticize or respond to something I have written. I always, in every single instance, use my own name when doing so. I have never left a single comment at any other blog using any name other than my own, at least not since I began blogging. IP addresses signify the Internet account one uses, not any one individual. Those in the same household have the same IP address. In response to the personal attacks that have been oozing forth these last couple of weeks, others have left comments responding to them and correcting the factual inaccuracies, as have I. In each case when I did, I have used my own name.

From Response to right-wing personal attacks.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 04-03-2008, 01:36 PM
amcarey amcarey is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 6
Default Re: MSM = Media Supporting McCain?

Ana Marie Cox is not a serious journalist, and her performance here pretty well demonstrates that she doesn't care about serious journalism. To suggest that the public's perception of journalists is irrelevant to what they're doing is hopelessly naive. Actually, public perception is essential. That's a big part of the reason why the right wing has spent many millions of dollars deriding the mainstream media as liberal; they were hoping the label would stick and that it would discredit news coverage, which it has. The fact is, serious news reporters should not socialize with the people they cover. Inevitably, it makes fair coverage impossible. If sportwriters want to socialize with baseball players, fine. If Ana Marie Cox, a novelist and columnist, wants to socialize with politicians in Washington, fine. But legit reporters, charged with the duty of explaining complicated and delicate situations to the general public, should never do so.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 04-03-2008, 01:37 PM
TwinSwords TwinSwords is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Heartland Conservative
Posts: 4,933
Default Re: MSM = Media Supporting McCain?

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnmarzan View Post
Of course, it is impossible to imagine iran aiding al queda and sunni baathists with arms and money to defeat a common foe, and at the same time doing the same thing to shiite militias in the south.

and of course, it was impossible for saddam to have had a connection or relationship with a sunni group like al queda before 9/11 or any other terrorist organization in the region against a common enemy like the US or Israel.
Your sarcasm is noted, but this isn't about what's possible or impossible. McCain wasn't simply speculating about Iran's role in the war. He said it was "common knowledge" and "well known" that Iran was training Al-Qaeda. And then he admitted it wasn't.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 04-03-2008, 01:41 PM
Larry Bird Larry Bird is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 30
Default Re: MSM = Media Supporting McCain?

How perspectives change when you recieve that cushy title at a mainstream magazine. Ana went from a blogger with an outsider looking in perspective to a traditional member of the media who doesn't care about any apperances of favoritism or conflict of interests. I'm glad she trusts herself to be objective but I as just a lowly member of the public don't and when I see you funning around with the people you're supposed to be keeping honest it creates a level of uneasiness. She basically said she doesn't care how it looks, like how dare we question her. I guess I'm just some idiot reader who does not understand journalism well enough to realize that all reporters never give friends the benefit of the doubt. I lost a lot of respect for her.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 04-03-2008, 02:05 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: MSM = Media Supporting McCain?

Twin:

Thanks for that link. I looked on Salon after giving up on a general Google, but I forgot about Glenn's earlier blog site.

My first thought on reading the obsessive wingnut's post was along those lines: duh, IP addresses don't map to a unique individual. It's always instructive to be reminded of how willing these "citizen journalists" are to overlook basic facts when they're on their little witch hunts. Daveh, please note.

I was interested to see in Glenn's post his accusation that LGF and Instapundit kept the sockpuppetry meme alive by "... promoting virtually every post which contains such attacks, no matter how juvenile or false ..." I guess I shouldn't be surprised by this, particularly coming from Chuckles, but it never fails to amaze me that Glenn Reynolds doesn't show a little more sense of responsibility, given his high profile.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 04-03-2008, 04:23 PM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: MSM = Media Supporting McCain?

Quote:
Originally Posted by deebee View Post
Ana's reply that she was not asking for advice is a typical Men are from Mars, Women from Venus example. Although interesting, this diavlog was a bit painful to watch because of that tone. He was a bit ponderous - she was dismissive and, as Otto said, way too snippy. I generally like these two, but they should try to be a tad more civil to each other.

As for the person that said that the media can't avoid being enamored with Obama -- I think that they should try really, really hard to either not be or to hide that fact. When an extreme bias is detected in the Press (MSNBC for example) they lose credibility and democracy really suffers.
The irony of the shot to Glen about 'solving her problems' was that just previously she was bemoaning the lack of willingness among commenters to engage in civil discussion where there was the possibility of minds being changed.

As far as McCain Love, a while back I was watching an interview of Dana Bash, a CNN reporter who covers the McCain Campaign. The subject was McCain's introductory speech on the Economy. I'd previously seen her covering the infamous barbecue, so I was curious if she'd betray any bias for McCain. At the very end, she added a disclaimer line that would be appropriate for a McCain surrogate, something like, 'but this speech was just an overview' YMMV. And if IIRC, Cox did the same thing. After saying that one of the possibile explanations for one of McCain's actions was mental impairment, or somesuch, she quickly added (paraphrase), 'but I don't think that's it.'

Last edited by look; 04-03-2008 at 04:31 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 04-03-2008, 04:27 PM
January January is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 46
Default Like Nailing Jello to a Wall

After batting the ball with Greenwald on the subject of McCain's mis-speech on the Iran-Al Qaeda link, Cox bemoaned that she had allowed herself to be lured into the gutter with Greenwald, instead of steering the conversation towards McCain's "major" foreign policy speech. But not wanting to elevate the proceedings too much, she did not pursue her own invitation to actually discus the speech. Cox had no trouble dismissing Greenwald when he was strident, which he was a couple of times, but when he was more supple in his challenges she suddenly found nuance and complexity all around her and was as hard to nail down as Jello to a wall. I fear she likes to win at this game, but not actually play.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 04-03-2008, 04:38 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: MSM = Media Supporting McCain?

look:

Quote:
At the very end, she added a disclaimer line that would be appropriate for a McCain surrogate, something like, 'but this speech was just an overview' YMMV. And if IIRC, Cox did the same thing. After saying that one of the possibile explanations for one of McCain's actions was mental impairment, or somesuch, she quickly added (paraphrase), 'but I don't think that's it.'
That's the story in a nutshell. By contrast, whenever any of the "liberal media" cover some Clinton or Obama gaffe, the closing line is invariably something like, "It remains to be seen just how much damage this will do in the coming weeks. And now, for a reaction, we turn to [fill in rightwing blowhard here]."
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 04-03-2008, 11:17 PM
johnmarzan johnmarzan is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Quiapo
Posts: 358
Default Re: MSM = Media Supporting McCain?

Quote:
To your credit, you demonstrate awareness of Rendell's leanings. To your detriment, you appear to have ignored why he might have said that.
Because they hate both candidates?

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjkeefe View Post
Any idea whether Greenwald ever responded to the charges?
He did, and he denied them. He says that some comments were left by his boyfriend, which explains the IP addresses.
a brazilian boyfriend who uses similar language like greenwald and writes like him?

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/187585.php

http://hotair.com/archives/2006/07/2...t-theater-iii/

Last edited by johnmarzan; 04-03-2008 at 11:28 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 04-03-2008, 11:24 PM
johnmarzan johnmarzan is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Quiapo
Posts: 358
Default Re: MSM = Media Supporting McCain?

Quote:
Silly? More like accurate, as you acknowledge.
It is silly to be offended by O'Reilly's "bias." Because's an opinion/debate show.

obviously, you don't watch foxnews and rely only on leftwing blogs like mediamatters for your information.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.