
(Today author Eric Boehlert joins us for the second half of the discussion of his book, Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush. Part I can be found here .)
One of the questions frequently lobbed at politicians on blogger conference calls is what they feel their relationship is to the mainstream press. Some acknowledge that Democrats have a hard time getting their message included, but the’ll also excuse this as part and parcel of not being the party in power. Others see the press as rather inert, a medium rather than a messenger. I’ve only heard one acknowledge that on balance the press is actively hostile to the Democratic party, to liberals in general, and that the myth of a "liberal media" is just that — a myth.
To all of them I’d like to recommend picking up Eric Boehlert’s book Lapdogs. The blogosphere can be like a fast-moving train, and it can take some time to join the conversation — from a blogger’s perspective, if you’re writing 4 or 5 posts a day it’s just difficult to keep explaining the same stuff over and over again, it’s as boring to keep repeating endless exposition as it is to read it. To all those looking for a quick, concise, funny and brutal textbook on the history of the narratives we are discussing, there is no better tome. And as someone who writes about this stuff every day, I can say that reading it all catalogued like this, condensed into one tight story, is quite daunting.
Boehlert takes many of the salient threads that scatter across the blogosphere on a day-in, day-out basis and weaves them into a tight tapestry with the benefit of hindsight that allows him to organize them with a perspective that we don’t have when we’re sitting in the middle of unfolding events. And he does a remarkable job.
As Boehlert notes, there is great irony in the fact that journalists have been so easily lulled into compliance with right-wing narratives. We on the left may be critical but we’re trying to urge the press into higher standards; the right essentially wants to destroy them. As he says:
Journalists are being actively undermined, yet reporters and editors won’t even put up a fight. Rather than pushing back by pointing out the absurdity of the conservative press attacks (most MSM members politely ignored the Schiavo memo blunder, for instance), or at least ignoring the haters’ endless stream of baseless accusations, MSM jouornalists, anxious to prove they are not liberal, toast the press haters’ tenacity, gloss over their radical rhetoric, and pretend they’re adding something to the public dialog.
I personally go apoplectic when the queen of eliminationist rhetoric herself, Ole 60 Grit O’Beirne, shows up regularly on Meet the Press or Hardball and and she’s treated like her opinion on anything is either reasonable or relevant. It’s a measurement of how far the discourse is slipped that she’s not banished to fulminating about fluoridated water and black helicopters in some remote wingnut ghetto but rather given a rather large megaphone to spout her extremism. Boehlert is absolutely right — this media acquiescence to the radical right is unseemly.
And for all the recent dust-up over liberal bloggers and their relationship to the Democratic Party, few have seen fit to point out the obvious — we are rather blissfully NOT under their thumb, and hence much of the friction. Quite different from the right-wing bloggers, who exist as simply another tentacle of the Mighty Wurlizter:
For instance, during the 2006 confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, the RNC hand-picked right-wing bloggers, including Power Line, to cover the event from Washington, D.C., showering them with access and attention in the process, including an off-the-record interview with Karl Rove. In return the RNC was rewarded with mostly glowing, obedient coverage from bloggers in attendance. "The [Alito] sessions revived, and arguably legitimized, criticism that at least some right-leaning bloggers are tools of the GOP," noted Daniel Glover, writing for the nonpartisan National Journal.
When Bobo Brooks went on his silly anti-blogger rant this morning in The New York Times, he completely ignored the existence of right-wing bloggers, and rightfully so. In the grand scheme of the right-wing noise machine, these Wingnut Welfare Queens are largely irrelevant.
Boehlert goes on to note that the right wing attack on the media is rooted in ignorance, and therefore quite frequently incoherent:
Their work has everything to do with intimidation as well as advancing the conservative agenda, and too little to do with thoughtful media examination. The press haters literally do not understand how journalism works. Or at least they pretend they do not.
One has to wonder how journalists feel good about cozying up to those who neither appreciate what they do nor even desire their continued existence; I guess it’s easier to play nice with the schoolyard bully than it is to stand on principle. But Boehlert’s book clearly outlines the lengths the right-wing has gone to in order to co-opt and neutralize accurate, independent coverage of national politics and any major Democrat who does not recognize that this is what they’re up against should pick up a copy of this book, pronto.




265 Comments





Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Welcome Eric!
So great you could join us today – make yourself comfortable.
The locals will be reading the discussion post and pitching you questions – sit back and enjoy the ride, and jump in whenever.
Not frist.
Welcome Eric — looking forward to the discussion today!
greetings y’all. thanks for having me.
Please, everyone, confine this discussion thread to the book and its topics. The thread below can remain a more open discussion thread.
Seriously though, now that Gitmo has banned all journalists except for the ones at Fox-Jazeera, when will the press finally buy a clue and start reporting the obvious?
Trying to urge the “mainstream” press to take higher standards is a losers game.
WE are the higher standard.
Eric — I’m curious to know how your interaction with people in the media — a lot of whom you probably had some form of social relationship with prior to writing this book — has changed since its publication. Huge changes? A lot of agreement with what you’ve said — although likely more private than public agreement, I’m sure? Any dialogue opening up that you have seen regarding the important issues and behaviors that you raise here? Or have you become “persona non grata” among former media acquaintences?
I was stunned, but then not surprised, when the White House named Tony Snow WH Press Secretary. I mean they really eliminated the middleman didn’t they?
Welcome, Eric. I enjoyed hearing you in a panel discussion at YearlyKos.
In your chapter The MSM Goes To War, you describe the press’s failings in its coverage of the Iraq invasion and occupation, the way it became essentially a PR operation for the Bush administration. In the post-Katrina period, when we have seen some improvement in the way the MSM does its job generally, in your opinion have they become any more credible in their coverage of events in Iraq?
Last week, Peter Daou and I disagreed about one thing: Why? He says it’s not as important as identifying the instances; I agree, but aren’t the journalistic questions who what when where WHY and how? I really want your opinion, if you would be so kind.
I’m 2/3 of the way through the book. I find it easy to read but have to keep putting it down to find my husband and say “Can you believe this?????”
none of media acquaintences have suggested the premise of the book is completely left field, or that the press has actually been tough on Bush. in fact, more have privately conceded the premise of the book is accurate…it’s just that their media employer has really been the exception to the rule.
I used to enjoy reading the NYT in the morning, coffee and crossword, until their aid in the lead up to war with Iraq and further propping up of this administrations numerous crimes eventually led me to cancel my subscription. For a while I got my fix at the WaPo before the FDL battles with WaPo… (what was their names?). I wrote the WaPo often and eventually warned that as a daily reader I would soon move on to other news sources due to the talking points of (what was their names?) and their slimy coverage of Republican corruption. This morning as I finished my normal blog rounds and a quick glance at the online NYT and WaPo (Froomkin) I realized that I have never returned readership to the commercial press and my warnings to them were not idle threats. Further I now can hardly stomach the format of the big rags and this extends to television news of which I used to enjoy the BBC and PBS – no more. Lack of my commercial rag reader-ship/viewer-ship is hardly important in itself but how many thousands plus have done the same; disgust in the rags led me to progressive blogs which still amaze me daily for their dedication, professionalism and creative approach. As Jane lives her mothers passing I hope she takes comfort knowing that her efforts here have been noble and historic, many thanks to Jane’s mom, and Jane.
post-katrina, i, like lots of folks, held out hope the press was going to come to its collective senses. but yet again (like charlie brown kicking the football) i’ve been disappointed. i mean just look at the nonsense re: the bush bounce last week. the press, it seems, is incapable of getting out of its bush rut.
Heh, I’d like to list all these “exceptions” because damned if I could name any.
ah, the question of why. it’s a big one, and i wish i had a better answer. but if i had to rank them, i’d put fear of the right-wing attacks on the press as no. 1. the conservative ‘liberal bias’ attack, now 35-years old, has been very effective and has produced wonderous results for the right.
that said, there’s also a personal thing going on between press and dems. the press didn’t like clinton, it hated gore, it thought kerry was out-classed and makes fun of reid, pelosi etc.
Eric,
Blog triumphalists hail the new online medium as a way to create or even supplant the establishment media’s ability to annoint conventional wisdom. Blog pessimists say that nothing matters until we transform the narratives of the establishment media through pressure, consistency and political action.
Where do you line up in this argument?
I was going to ask if it seems to you as if the trend you identify has started to shift, but that was before I saw the latest reporting on the Casey proposal. The one the journos are saying is a big help for the Republicans, even though it puts them in the position of being against timetables before they were in favor of them.
Hi Eric, I haven’t read Lapdogs yet, but perhaps you can address this: By what means does the corporate media management enforce (via editors) message discipline on reporters? Is it the whore model (”You’ll cover what I tell you to cover, dammit, and to hell with your scruples”)or the koolaid drinker model (hire reporters who are in ideological agreement)? Thanks.
Two things going on that the press could resist really bother me: the backgrounders where the “top administration officicial” puts out a story a day ahead and it gets exclusive coverage, and the failure of most media outlets to identify or limit quoting administration officials who say totaling self-serving things.
This has gone on for along time in media, but this GOP team has honed the manipulation of the press with these tools to an art. Shouldn’t major news organizations put a stop to this or do they have no self respect??
Eric at 16
If you covered this in the book, I apologize, haven’t been able to get it yet:
can you explain WHY the press “didn’t like Clinton, hated Gore, thought Kerry was out-classed and makes fun of Reid, Pelosi, etc.?”
Is it the complete conversion of coverage of elections to the horse-race theme from the substance of issues? And how did that happen, anyway?
Again, apologies if it’s all on the page – I will read the book as soon as I can.
It’s the “privately conceded” that’s the heart of the matter.
What would happen if they conceded publically, Eric?
Here’s another why, Eric, that I’ve never been able to figure out. Why did they not like Clinton? From out here in Citizenville, the view of Clinton was of a likable, really smart guy. What did he do to the press corps to make them hate him? BE smarter?
“. . .it’s just that their media employer has really been the exception to the rule.” That’s what women say when discussing how bad marriages can get or how selfish men can be. “But not my husband, he’s really the exception.” Anybody recognize this? Making excuses for bad or bullying behavior makes you a …what?
Greetings Eric. Thanks very much for your book.
Related to op99’s question at 19, as a graduate student in journalism I know that a few years ago, studies of the supposed “liberal bias” in news organizations tended to show that, although ownership of these organizations is often in the hands of Republicans, the party preferences of reporters and journalists tended to be Democratic. Has this changed?
i don’t think blogs, for now, can supplant the msm’s ability to annoint cw. but blogs can someimtes help correct it or re-direct the cw.
the bad news is in recent months i’ve become even more pessimisitic as we watch the msm again and again simply ignore obvious points raised online and just embrace RNC talking points. i.e. last week i wrote how odd it was the press was protraying dems as the losers in the ‘cut and run vs. timetable debate, considering the three previous national polls all showed a majority of americans supported the dems position; setting a timetable.
yet this week’s newsweek reports the gop ‘won’ the debate on iraq last week, while, of course, conventiently ignoring the fact americans side w/ dems.
it’s like this bad movie that won’t stop replaying itself
Semi-O/T: Murtha is really taking a beating in the reader comments section of this article
http://regulus2.azstarnet.com/…..id=135159.
If editors are tallying positive vs negative response.. they’ll certainly think readership is anti-Murtha.
The fallout?????
party preference of good reporters dont matter, they do their job. But even good reporters are influenced by access pressures and rewards.
More insiduous in a place such as DC is that there are friendships and cocktail circuits and there is an elite element to rewards for top-level beat reporters.
SOme dont care about this, but many do.
Most insiduous is the issue of access. If you cover the Senate, you need Frist. You would have no access if you referred to what he did to the cats in cambridge. it doesnt matter that it is in his book.
I have a feeling the only notable shift in CW will come with surprising electoral results or strength.
If the Dems surprise people in ‘06, there may be some changes in the narraitves. Maybe. But even then, only if DC Dems push their case and play offense (as if!. . . but one can hope, and organize).
Hi Eric:
I’m a former journalist turned litigation attorney but I can’t believe the unparalled assault on our freedoms and rights. And the overreach of powers taken on by this white house.
And all the while Congress does nothing. The “fourth estate” does nothing.
Stolen election machines mean our votes don’t count even if we moblize and fire up the troops. I believe Kerry actually won by 3 percent as the exit polls showed before they stole the election.
I am very cynical. What’s your take on the future of this country?
And, if you want to get even more depressed, read below from truthout: a “commission” to continue the assualt on the poor, the environment, etc., ,long after the Preznit is gone. nice.
White House, GOP Leaders Plan All-Out Assault on Federal Protections
BushGreenwatch.org
Friday 23 June 2006
Apparently rushing to lock in a long-sought goal before the fall elections, GOP congressional leaders may bring to a vote within weeks a proposal that could literally wipe out any federal program that protects public health or the environment – or for that matter civil rights, poverty programs, auto safety, education, affordable housing, Head Start, workplace safety or any other activity targeted by anti-regulatory forces.
With strong support from the Bush White House and the Republican Study Committee, the proposal would create a “sunset commission” – an unelected body with the power to recommend whether a program lives or dies, and then move its recommendations through Congress on a fast-track basis with limited debate and no amendments.
Three leading proposals have been introduced and are being winnowed into a final version. They would give the White House some – or total – authority to nominate members to the commission. House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) has confirmed that his office is coordinating development of a final version for prompt floor action.
Sunset commissions have been proposed, and defeated, before. But public interest veterans say the current situation is unlike any in the past, because the House Republican Study Committee, which includes some of the most anti-regulatory members of Congress, has secured guaranteed floor consideration of a sunset bill.
If such a bill should become law, the sunset commission could be packed with industry lobbyists and representatives from industry-funded think tanks, and could conduct its business in secrecy. Two of the sunset proposals under consideration would mandate that programs die after they are reviewed, unless Congress takes action to save them.
Several environmental programs have been targeted during past sunset attempts. Experts predict those would be among the first a sunset commission would review. Among them: the Energy Star Program; federal support for mass transit; the State Energy Program, which supports numerous state and local energy renewable efficiency programs; the Clean School Bus Program; the Land and Water Conservation Fund; federal grants for Wastewater infrastructure; a national children’s health study that examines factors leading to such problems as premature birth, autism, obesity, asthma, and exposures to pesticides, mercury and other toxic chemicals.
A coalition of public interest groups is fighting to block enactment of a sunset commission. Information is available through the Sunset Commission Action Center at OMB Watch.
——-
I have the same question as Pachacutec #17, what is the best response. Corporate media has financial incentive to pander and turn news and analysis into show business. BushCo is very aggressive in exploiting that incentive. The reactionary wing is very well organized. I wish the DailyKos as dictator scandal was not as silly as it is, since the non-reactionary blogs do not have message discipline and are shuned by establishment Dems.
Several times in your book you seemed to complain that it wasn’t fair, or that media should be fairer. But why should they. They are corporations out to make money through marketing and buying off government. They need pressure from other side, but how to do that?
Eric,
Thanks so much for your revealing insights, great book and of course, visiting with us here.
My question is what can we do to seriously ratchet up the pressure ?
not sure why the press didn’t like clinton. the cw was he was too much like them and they resented his amazing political success. i don’t doubt the theory even tho it’s demented. since when are journlaists supposed to put themselves on the same footing as presidential candidates? incredibly arrogant, but i’m sure it explains part of the groupthink that took place.
cw?
Jane Hamsher is the reason I read blogs.
It’s the unquestioning spoonfed stenography that continues to dismay me, because it’s more subtle than the open attacks. Today’s NYT article about how our top military commanders are “planning” on significant withdrawals seems a case in point. In one of the first paragraphs, we are told that the top general’s briefing on the “plan” was highly secret. The rest of the article then specifies the details of the highly secret plan. So this was a deliberate leak, but the article doesn’t explain how that came to be — only that people weren’t allowed to go on the record.
Nor did the article explain the context well enough to allow us to connect the dots. For example, all week, we had Congressional debates about what our”plan” should be? Does the President have a “plan” or not? What is it?. What is “stay the course?” At the end of the “debate,” the Dems are allowed to argue that there is no plan except more of the same and they carry that theme into the elections. But wait.
The story says, “well, here’s a plan, with lots of details.” But it’s not really a plan, because they don’t really “plan” to follow it. It’s just an scenario excercise to answer the question, “what if conditions allowed you to withdraw troops. what would you do?” Answer: withdraw these troops, then those troops on this possible schedule. It’s just a scenario, not a genuine plan that actually tells us how to create the conditions in which the troops can actually be withdrawn, given whatever policy objective (unstated) they have.
Now that’s the lead story in the NYT, our paper of record. Deliberately leaked for spin, spoonfed and not what it appears, and not questioned either as to logic or purpose.
cw = conventional wisdom
cw=conventional wisdom (or cow watching, depending on where you live)
boehlert #26: you seem pretty pessimistic. So what pressure would press respond to, in your opinion? You think nothing will happen until organized effort from Democrats? Get a critical mass of blog supported progressives, regardless of their ideological leanings, who will speak directly to press? What do you see as good approaches to the problem?
yes, the media are out to make money. but i don’t think that means they can’t do it by practicing good journalism. they did it for years. but the rules have obviously changed over the last decade.
They didn’t like Carter, either, as I remember. Is it the whole insider/outsider thing? But then, how to explain Reagan?
Lack of my commercial rag reader-ship/viewer-ship is hardly important in itself but how many thousands plus have done the same;
Boehlert – do you get any sense that any of the big shot reporters or editors have any idea that their business model itself is at risk?
Also, just have to say that I thought Shill Wind was brilliant.
I thought they felt free to go after Clinton since his past (week smoking, draft dodging Rhodes Scholar) was the very cariacature of a liberal they can exploit for free.
Clinton was all about their class-hatred, Eric. Don’t you remember what”Dean” Broker and Sally “Kneepads” Quinn wrote about him “trashing the place”?
He was Brittany Spears to them– pure Trailer Trash. The fact that he was smarter, braver and more tenacious than they were only made it worse for them.
the good approaches–i think what’s happening online right now is a great approach. i mean just think back to the downing street memo. if it hadn’t been for the furor caused online, that story would have been completely ignored.
so, i don’t want to suggest the efforts are not paying off. some are. it’s just that the msm is showing no signs, even with bush at embarrassingly low approval ratings, of seriously adjusting its approach.
Eric @33 – man, that mind set you describe – jealousy – has been a big part of the conservative push of the last 35 years. ANYONE can become president (and that was all too sadly proven in 2000 – any DOLT can); therefore, I am just like the president. How dare he show he’s better than me. Led to the SC saying it’s OK to sue a sitting president for something he did before he was elected. Personally, I don’t hold the most powerful man in the free world to the same standards as my next-door neighbor.
Can you think of a way to prevent the next SwiftBoat episode, which will be directed very shortly against Murtha? How would you handle a response to that smear?
i also thought today’s nty article on troop levels was amazing disingenuous. as if generals really have the final word re: this incredibly loaded political issue. obviously generals didn’t have the final word in calculating the troop strength in 2003 (rumsfeld did), and i doubt they’ll get the final say in 2006 or 2007. but it seemed to me the times played dumb about that part.
Re Clinton: your book reinforced my opinion that much of corporate media divas today are performers not news people. They are a corrupt show business aristocracy that can’t dig or thnk, ashamed to bed. Clinton was not part of that, wouldn’t play their showbiz game, and could make them look like fools. So combination of arrogance, fear, class solidarity was responsible. In addition to being seduced by GOP playbook what is very carefully designed to appeal to their strengths and vanity, and which was at least implicity approved of by corporate suits. But I came to the book with strong prejudices. I always come back to question -what is best way to counter all that?
I meant “ashamed to beg.” I am sure that they are not ashamed to bed, with the right sort of people.
Nah, as you explained in the the DSM episode, Eric, the media response (especially Dana Milbank’s) to the mock hearing John Conyers held just re-iterated the naked scorn the MSM has for Democrats. They (falsely) claim they can’t air opposing opinions to the Bushies because there aren’t any Democrats to do it. But when Democrats are actively making a point, as they were witht he Downing Street Memo, they either ignored them or riduculed them, then at long last called the issue “old news”.
OK, call me a tinfoil hat brigader, I’m fine with that, but when is the media going to cover the growing 911 truth movement?
I don’t have the answers but I do know that the govt’s story on 911 is complete BS. The towers didn’t fall from jet fuel. Jet fuel burns at 1,200 degrees, on a good day, and steel requires 2,500 to 3,000 degrees to melt. Yet there was red hot dripping metal at ground zero for weeks.
http://www.physics911.net/
Remember: it took about 10 years for the JFK assination/Warren Commission to get revealed as total BS too.
Boehlert – are you familiar with Robert Parry’s reporting on how the right wing, led by Bill Simon, took over (in the sense of influence) media ownership? What, if anything, do you think of his work? At least the part of it that covers the news media?
Hi, Eric:
I’m the exec. editor of a progressive magazine, In These Times, and have been following critiques like those that you outline in your book very closely for the past few years. Seems to me that the case about the corruption and bias of mainstream media has been made quite soundly, but that media critics pay much less attention to the need for progressive media alternatives to serve as a counterweight to the MSM.
I agree that blogs–which can very effectively generate rapid response and marshall audience activism– are an important tool for shifting the common wisdom. But we also need outlets that can generate and showcase new “wisdom,” that can draw audience and dollars away from the mainstream. What do you think?
re: jealousy and anyone can become president. remember back during the 2000 campaign when a boston tv reporter (notice he was well outside the beltway) tossed a pop quiz at bush re: international leaders. what was the rampaign msm response? they immediately rushed to bush’s aid, announcing the test wasn’t fair– it was so tough even *they* couldn’t get some of those quesetions right. never thinkingi for a moment that somebody runnign for president might be expected to know more re: foreign policy than a weekly mag columnist.
#27, what do you expect from Arizonans? The state is filled with the rabid dogs of conservatism, who neither read nor comprehend.
Re Parachutec @ 16, Eric Boehlert @ 17, and other comments about the MSM’s relationship with/attitudes toward the Democratic leadership: It’s got to be more than “personalities” or “not liking” particular Democratic leaders, in my opinion. Perhaps a model of “internalized racism” or internalized sexism or homophobia, in which people, including people of color, women, and gay people, who do not consider themselves racist, sexist or homophobic, nevertheless unconsciously internalize those beliefs, is going on here.
These Republicans have perfected bullying tactics and the MSM have shown who they are by how well they respond to bullying. They cower and lick the hand that beats them. SM? I don’t know how they can even be called journalists anymore since they don’t do their jobs. I’m not interested in why they identify with power and respond with cowardice to bullying, what I care about is stopping their lies.
True, wesgpc.
That’s why they gave Gucky a pass. He was the “right kind of whore” (ie. major White House access of the sort they could only dream about). Precisely who he was fucking on his many visits to the West Wing was never investigated because, as Mr. Sheri Annis reminds us, “that’s aprivate matter.”
Being a male prostitute is “a private matter” when you’re working for the Republicans.
re: that class bias – remember the “old days” of newspapering – reporters rarely had college degrees, let alone journalism degrees. They usually started as copy boys and moved up to the police beat; they didn’t get paid the big bucks even as bylne reporters. In those days, they were more likely to identify with the “trailer trash” than the elite.
I suspect that the “professionalizing” of journalism, like many other forms of credentialism, is part of the problem. Reporters with degrees in history or finance or political science, or with knock-around experience and no degree, but some travel around the real world, might have some depth of knowledge to recognize when they’re being fed bull—. Now, with their BA’s and MA’s, they identify with the upper middle class, and aspire to the upper class, where the tv stars of network news have landed with their unimaginable paychecks.
What does anyone think of this part of the theory?
Eric @ 45
Trying to measure the effect of the blogs by looking at the MSM’s reaction may be missing the point. In my humble opinion, Bush’s JARs didn’t happen because of MSM reporting of his missteps, but are more due to the increasing role that blogs, other online media, and cable shows like The Daily Show play in the media-consumption patterns of society. When Jon Stewart and his tech crew edit together a series of talking points being spun by the various spinmeisters, the more mindless acceptance of said spin by the NYT, WaPo, and others becomes proof of the idiocy at work.
true, even when msm had to deeal with DSM they fell down on the job. (lying about the memo was about ‘preparing’ for war, when it was about bush having ‘decided’ to go to war in 2002.) but at least they were forced to report it.
I’m curious. Why is it that the average citizen with internet access, the small majority that utilize it to learn about current events, seem to know more and understand more than the mainstream? It’s like information is being selectively filtered out before it even hits the television. I have a friend over in Hungary, who mentions that the local news over there airs the uncut, unedited portions of Bush generally stuttering and looking like an idiot while giving a speech. Over here in the States, the very same speech is aired with it cut. Also, the Downing Street memo was well known among the blog and various internet circles for a good year before the Mainstream Media even picked it up. I wonder if this is due to some sort of clamping down from higher up in corporate, selective ignorance, or that journalistic standards aren’t what they used to be? It’s really disconcerting when people who read the blogs and various reputable websites out there are more well informed as oppossed to someone who watches the news daily. It seems like that the vast majority of people just do not care or are not educated enough to understand the importance of an open government and well-informed society. I have the feeling that the internet, as a medium will transform society and how the government operates in the future.
Eric, would it make a difference if we had the sort of media they have in the UK? Where there are Tory papers and Labour papers, etc. Can we get some rich people to buy some media outlets? Is that a viable option, in your opinion?
The continued disappointment of the press from via Billmon.
The Oceania News Network
CNN has now picked up today’s Times’s story saying that the top commander of forces in Iraq projects troop drawdowns through 2007 — in stark contrast to the GOP’s stay-the-course position. And guess what? In the CNN story there is no mention whatsoever of the fact that the primary message of the Republican Party over the past week, delivered by party leaders and elected officials alike in every media forum imaginable, was that anyone calling for a timetable for withdrawal was embracing “retreat” and “surrender” . . . It will be striking if the media plays along with this one and fails to aggressively remind readers and viewers of just how relentlessly the GOP smeared anyone calling for a withdrawal timetable. Well, CNN has now reported on the story and not seen fit to mention it at all.”
Eric: do you attribute any of the Dems wimpiness on the war and the MSM’s support to AIPAC and it’s support of the war? They fund a lot of Dems and it seems pretty clear to me they wanted this war.
Remember Barney Frank saying that they warned all dems to NOT appear at the anti-war protest in DC?
Could fear of the Israel lobby be keeping the media in line as well? And before anyone calls me an anti-semite, know that I a Jew.
In regard to your response to #33, Sidney Blumenthal, in this “Clinton Wars” addressed this quite succinctly (regarding the Clinton hatred), stating that Clinton was not part of, what Jane and Christy call now, the “cocktail weenie” circuit. He cites Sally Quinn’s (I hope I got it right) society page in the Washington Post.
Vis-a-vis why the MSM is so disconnected, I think there is direct correlation between this whole TNR vs. left blogostan issue and the general disconnect: “They all know what’s good for us rabble, i.e. the general public.”
Finally, I feel that the GOP uses this view of the MSM, correlates it back to the definition of “liberal” and voila, you have the liberal media canard. [It is a general problem, IMO, with the establishment Democratic party, the “I know what’s good for the rabble doctrine, but that’s compeltely OT]
Can you comment on this?
The media loves sound bites and the Dems give awful ones. They are so busy triangulating their own careers that they can’t deliver a pointed provocative message like “the administration is incompetent and covers up its incompetence with lies and diversions”. We need lightning rods on the left with credibility who are willing to smack these bullies in the mouth. Great sound bites gives great TV. And when the winger media comes back to parse, hit again with another provocative comment-Dems have to stop anwering attacks and start doing the attacking. The media will have to cover it and we need to keep coming at them with what we believe in.
Dean has been pretty good on this as has Feingold and Murtha. But no way will the other presidential hopefuls do it.
If the Dems surprise people in ‘06, there may be some changes in the narraitves = Pachacutec
God I hope you’re right, but I’m not going to hold my breath – if Dems win big I see these headlines “Repubs Lose!” and a story line about how they failed to ’stay on message’
Reagan – played avunvular uncle, and they lapped it up
Clinton – I said this the other night in the Joke Line loves Chimpy thread -
Clinton was perceived as ’substance’ and most of them resented his ass for it, seeing him work the room, dazzling all different types, their self images suffered in the comparison. Whereas Chimpy is ‘form’ (ask Karl) he is a sketch, an outline, that allows them to imagine themselves as the big swinging dick, nothing substantative to chase those BMOC daydreams away
i think the msm wimpishness on the war was not unlke the democratic wimpishness on the war; both were looking for political cover and didn’t want to leave themselves exposed–politically–in case the war was a success.
It is just me, or do others perceive that it takes a while for the MSM to absorb a critical view of what they originally report without thinking? For example, today’s WaPo/NYT stories include more followup on (1) the “follow the money” wrt to Abramoff and (2) who misled us wrt to WMD and who kept putting the phony intel back in to Administration speeches on SOTU and UN. At the same time, when new stories/new topics break, like the arrest of the magnificently inept seven in Miami, the initial spin is right out of Rove’s office and it goes on CNN all day long, as though no one can remember they’ve been spun before by the same people with the same type of story.
I suppose we should be thankful that it took only a few days this time for a few reporters/papers to start asking, were these terrorists, or just dupes? Why now?
So, Eric, are we getting better? Is there a pattern?
agreed. the dems are in desperate need of message improvement. it’s tough enough from a media standpoint to be locked out of power in congress, wh, and courts. (i.e. reporters don’t take dems as seriously when they have no real power.) but to then too often be unable to articule a clear message only compounds the party’s press problem.
…the media began their overt complicity the day Reagan was inaugarated(hostage release timing….convienent anyone?)
as far as the miami terrorists arrests and the inclusion of some skeptisim just 2 days after the news broke, i guess we should be grateful journalist have learned from the past. but did it really take 5 years and countless, breathless breaking stories about al qaida cells being ‘broken’ in the u.s., before reporters wised up?
You mean when Ted Koppel started reporting every night? (@72)
On #69
Mitch McConnell, on This Weak, said exactly what you just said about the Democratic party, i.e. that they continuously are looking for political cover in regard to the Iraq situation, even to this day. Dick Durbin just let that one go – how does one get pushback if the Democrats keep on shooting themselves in the foot like this?
I’m obsessed with the question of effective countermeasures. What has been some of your media contacts’ response to the mass actions of the non-reactionary blogs? Such as those done by%u2026 I won’t mention no names, but FDL and DailyKos have been involved in some of them. For example, the mass response to the Washington Post’s double speak on partisan nature of Abramoff contributions (ie, the matter or Deborah Howell)
also: IMHO, bad Dem sound bite and unfair shakes problems their own fault. If you don’t even try…
Talcott
Are you sure the media did not begin their overt complicity during Reagan’s campaign against Carter? The inordinate attention given to the “Killer Bunny” is just one instance that comes to mind…
Re: blog readers being informed – just spent a week w/ my 87-yr. old mother. She has vision problems so recentlh cancelled her Baltimore Sun subscription. Fair enough – tough to read. But what chilled me was when she said – I don’t really need the paper, the tv news covers everything, so I get all the news anyway.”
There was no point arguing with her, so I didn’t. But…I suspect many middle-class, hard-working folks, let alone the retired, losing-their-vision ones, believe much the same. HOw do we reach them?
mommybrain @ 2:27 pm (#38) – cw=conventional wisdom (or cow watching, depending on where you live)
Or clockwise, if you’re at all technical.
71, Maybe it’s hard to take Dems. Seriously because they locked themselves out with their own foolishness.
Thank you, Eric, for your compendium of corporate-owned media failures during this Bush Administration’s tenure. As you noted the onslaught by the right against the media has been nearly four decades in the making. I don’t think we can say the press is simply not doing its job; although confessions about the nature of the corporate-owned media as a tool of the right are far and few between, this does not mean that the media is something other than a mouthpiece for the right. Ownership of the media, for example, has changed substantially over the last four decades and is now under the control of elements that are very much supporters of the right.
To what extent, in your opinion as a insider, is ownership and management of media a component of the right’s onslaught? As I see it, four decades is long enough to completely replace all journalists with two to three generations of right-leaning or at least sympathetic journalists from the business-side. Having worked for several Fortune 100 companies, I’m confident this would have been the case in any other industry; the entire workforce could be changed in a mere 15 years time, as exemplified by the IT industry.
Are there changes in public policy and practice that we should seek should progressives regain a majority in legislature to reduce the impact of any party’s ideology on the media? (Reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, for example…) Thanks again for your efforts.
re. #63
We’ve got plenty of progressive/liberal/etc. media outlets, it’s just that they’re not placed on the same footing as conservatives in the MSM, so the range of national debate is truncated. Yes, if rich people would fund them more directly, that’d help. But the fight is for legitimacy as well as as audience or funding…forcing producers to put the “balance” in “fair and balanced” on the cable and Sunday shows, rather than matching up frothing Republican pundits against timid, milquetoast democrats.
#55: Maybe I was naively hoping that someone like Murtha could change wingnut minds. So guess I was awestruck by the vitriol directed toward him.
#46: The Swiftboating has begun, see # 27.
#42: I absolutely feel that the conventional media business model is at risk. But many of the people I’ve worked with over the years look only to tonight’s ratings.. Adrenaline junkies who just assume they’ll get a better job elswhere or go work in PR if the profit tide turns.
Lots of short-sightedness. Do whatever it takes to get people to watch TODAY. Not much contemplation about the impact of credibility on long term viewership trends.
Bush’s own daughters aren’t his lapdogs.
What kind of Family Values would keep them away on Father’s Day?
http://www.latimes.com/news/na…..nes-nation
“…The Bush daughters, Jenna and Barbara, were not expected to visit for Father’s Day today…”
Tejanarusa @ 59 -
I suspect that the “professionalizing” of journalism, like many other forms of credentialism, is part of the problem
got about that far in to your comment when it dawned on me
1. omg, You’re Right, straight up
all those MBA’s coming out of school with dreams of $$$ dancing in their heads – then Boesky and Milken went to jail – and they all had to go somewhere
of course, that’s not all of it, but it could explain a clutch of the most clueless
unfortunatley i think most journalists simply lump all countermeasures under the catagory of ‘noise’ i.e. ‘oh, the left is mad at but so is the right so i must be on the right track.’ conventiently ignoring the fact that the criticism from the left is usually fact-driven, whereas the criticism from the right is usually partisan-driven. meaning they don’t like a story because it’s bad news for bush, not becasue of a journalims misstep in putting the story together.
cbl:
Don’t get me wrong, I have caveats attached to my comment. All I’m saying is electoral surprise would be, in my estimation, a necessary precondition. After that, other thngs need to fall in place for the right things (maybe) to heppen.
#78
If you are a daring soul, you call in to Wrong Smith, Bruce Idiot or that other Right Wing moron on WBAD, especially when it becomes WBOB [Ehrlich]
:)
cw==carrier wave for us old fogeys and radio technology…
re #80. i’m not a big fan of trying to bring back the fairness doctrine, mostly because politically it’s not possibly and i’d hate to see folks waste valuable time and resources chasing it.
Feingold on MTP – good debater, straight talker, rational, calm, smart, well-informed. What do you think the media scorn theme for candidate Feingold will be? What vice theme will they “discover” in his character?
Rayne #81 had a good point. And the corporate agenda of media will be a problem even after Dems gain strength. As Dems get towards tipping point, prospective Dem Congresspeople are now a “must have accessory” as TPM said a day or so ago. But suppose Dems do get a house, then problem will turn into one of being co-opted by media (I’m talking about the Dems not already in their bag, of course). I second Rayne’s question -how much is due to that. If so, is the pressure direct, or indirect through pressure to get high ratings, or indirect through emphasis on audience pleasing show business values so good demographics will keep tuning into the news show, for the same reason they do to a sit-come -to feel kind of swell for awhile.
O&Oer 2:50 pm –
Ugh. Absolutely spot on with that observation; that thread at the AZ Star is CLASSIC SwiftBoating, almost word-for-word the same tripe the SwiftBoatLiars used against Kerry.
Try it yourselves; read that thread linked through post #27 above, substitute the name Kerry everywhere you find the word Murtha. Stingingly resonant. Could almost insert the name Clinton, for that matter.
ppp 80 – There you go again (shaking head), using those durn Rethug talking points to define dems.
#91
The establishment Dems will do the same thing they did to Dean in the 02 campaign and Dr. Charles Krauthammer et al will be right there to perpetuate the insanity diagnosis. :(
#90 and feingold. that’s the scary part; what *will* be the narrative that emerges in 2008 that perhaps sinks the dem candidate. i realize not everybody thought gore was a strong canddiate going into 2000, but did anybody think the press was destroy him over ‘exaggerations’? and who possibly saw the august 2004 meida onslaught re: kerry and vietnam coming?
it’s hard enought to be elected president w/o having to worry about which rnc talking point the msm is going to latch onto during key junctures of a national campaign
Eric, do you think that the behavior of the press has had an influence on how democrats frame their statements thus making them to appear in disarray and not unified in their policies? A good example was Barbara Boxer this morning when commenting on North Korea and stating that we had to keep all options open (including taking the missle out) vs Lugar who opined for negotiation and diplomacy.
81/90 The Fairness doctrine only covered broadcast TV, not cable or newspapers etc. And I am concerned that if it were reinstated, the networks would just continue to use designated “Democrats” like Joe Klein to represent the Democratic/liberal side of “balance.” Not much help.
Eric: Thx for joining us here. I haven’t read the book yet, mainly because, as I heard you say to Sam Sedar on the Majority Report, it’s very depressing, but I have plans to read it next weekend.
My question: Do you think it is feasable to bypass the existing corporate media with a brand new publication or publications?
As I see it, the main weakness of the blogs is the lack of original reporting and the fact they are still reliant on the corporate media for most stories.
Josh Marshall has made a small start with TPMMuckraker, but do you think it’s feasable to get a new national newspaper up and running.
I would sure as hell buy it, but do you think left leaning capitalists are willing to put their money where there mouths are?
I think we need to make this jump, but will it ever happen?
Sorry if I’m rambling here.
I suppose one can take heart from the attention Kos is getting. After all, a lead columnist for the right, indeed their premier pseudo-intellectual, just wasted his Sunday NYT privilege on a attempted snark against a guy that 97.846% of Americans never hear of! And after his column, they still won’t have a clue, but they are wondering “what’s wrong with DB? It’s the equivalent of forcing the Repubs to spend $millions on Bilbray in CA50.
So the message from the right is, “these progressive bloggers are a threat to those of us carrying the right’s message, and it we get a chance, no matter how silly, to shoot at them, we have to.”
And perhaps the message is also that the progressive blogs are starting to get enough influence to make it seem unsafe for reporters/columnists to be a lapdog.
#96 in general i think dems play too much defense w/ the press and not enough offense. i.e. spending too much time worrying about what the chattering class will think.
“that said, there’s also a personal thing going on between press and dems. the press didn’t like clinton, it hated gore, it thought kerry was out-classed and makes fun of reid, pelosi etc.”
Yeah, those dems were “outclassed” alright. Why it’s so obvious that the neocons are just a better grade of human (a Clinton whitehouse official actually quoted someone in the press saying that the republicans were just a better class of people, or that was the gist of the statement). How can dems live up to the high moral calibre of people like norquist, delay, cheney, junior, abramoff, ney, doolittle, rover, lewis and libby, to name just a few? (snark intended)
I too would like to know why. What was there about Gore that the press hated? Was it his southern accent? Why dislike Clinton? I don’t get it, and I wonder if it’s really the grunt reporters or their editors who make these judgements.
If “the press” thought kerry was “outclassed” by JUNIOR, why should we really care what they think?
Hey all, hello, Eric. Wanted to stop by and at least say WOW, what a book. It should be flying out of bookstores. Incredible stuff, which I’ve referenced a lot, incuding on radio. Congratulations!
Nuerophius ———->79
I was a kid then and remember
(even at the tender age of …let the NSA fill in the blank here…….. :) )
that it was quite odd…….
…….then I actually delivered the Washington Post for many years as a kid during the Reagan Era. I read the head lines as I bagged and delivered them, and watched the deregulation junta hand in hand with the pressitutes sell us out.
And yes you are correct sir…I’ll leave it at this for me it seems as if
it all part and parcel to………
“Monopolies are sacrifices of the many to the few. Where the power is in the few it is natural for them to sacrifice the many to their own partialities and corruptions.”
James Madison
to my fellow redheaded homegrow virginian Sage Thomas Jefferson
Have a great afternoon all :)
By the way, if it’s not already apparent, it’s really worthwhile to read Eric’s book, if you have not already!
;)
#98. i like the idea. but the magazine biz is a tough one. that type of publication is almost guaranteed to lost money. who knows how many millions murdoch has lost propping up weekly standard (not to mention the nypost, which i think has lost more than $250 Million since ruprter bought it.)
Or, if you have read the book, as al franken always says, “makes a nice gift.”
boehlert 2:53 pm — isn’t the re-implementation of the Fairness Doctrine really a case of political will? Rep. Louise Slaught and FAIR both looked into this issue and found that the Fairness Doctrine had roughly 70% support among voters.
It’s not as if this country hasn’t ever had a Fairness Doctrine in place, either. I believe that the nature of political coverage changed immensely once the Fairness Doctrine was repealed. The reasons for its repeal have also collapsed as consolidation of media ownership since 1987 have effectively reduced the diversity of speech.
Is the inconvenience really a matter of trying to engage a generation or two of journalists and editors who have grown up in the media industry without consciousness of Fairness Doctrine practices?
boehlert 101
OK, so the Democrats play too much defense and not enough offense–what could they have done to overcome the anti-Democratic media bias in the 2000 and 2004 campaigns? Would it have made a difference?
#101. in theory we shouldn’t care what journalists thought of kerry and gore. problem is it completely tainted their coverage.
as for gore. i think that was payback, passive-aggressive style, for clinton. press spent 8 years chasing gop-concocted ’scandals’ and clinton waltzed out with record approval ratings. i think the press sense gore wasn’t as deft a candidate and unloaded on him.
What do you think would happen if Democrats simply confronted some of the divas with their lack of knowledge and facts? Make a scene and damage some reputations. The only one I see doing this at all is Dean. He is willing to simply stop the game in its tracks by pointing out wrong assumptions are wrong assumptions, wrong facts are wroing facts, beside the point points are, well, beside the point. That would make a lot of news, and in short run would inevitably be called a Democratic problem (like what is not?) But… it would Out There -which apparently a very precious commodity in the worlde of buzz we live in now.
What do you think the media scorn theme for candidate Feingold will be ?
wonkety, wonkety, wonk (read: boring)they’ll toy with the Twiced Divorced meme, but they’ll go back to ‘wonky like Gore’
Pachacutec: got ya, and I agree
am probably too cynical (if that’s even possible these days) but it’s as if they have a little box of boilerplate, and depending on the event, they take out a different one (althought I think at most they have 4)
the day before YKos began, think it was over at Pandagon and there was a thread to “write” the YKos story as soon t/b reported by MSM – went back a week later and it was so very sad to see how close we had all come to their standing predictable, intellectual sloth
Apologies OFF TOPIC
Eric, why do you think there are few left leaning “think tanks”? Why aren’t wealthy liberals funding publications such as the right does? Have you ever discussed this with anyone who might be able to contribute?
#109
I’m glad we’ve gotten to this point here: what to do to take the club out of the hands of the media that is killing our side?
cbl 112 – I’m voting for too short, not presidential, etc. Also too Jewish, although how they’ll finesse that one is anyone’s guess.
#99: no need to reinvent the wheel here–we’ve got AlterNet (daily), The Nation (weekly), Air America (to fight Limbaugh et. al) and a number of TV projects in the works on the progressive side. The fever for new projects undercuts the point of having a centralized space where we can all get the other side of the story…
I’m not saying these fill all our needs or that TPMMuckraker isn’t doing a good job–I’m just saying that it’s important to know what you’ve got before investing in yet another high-dollar media project.
#108 good question.
in 2000 and 2004 gore and kerry could have hit back harder at the press. gore knew those allegations about him ‘inventing the internet’ and discovering love canal were bogus but he (or his aides) fretted over calling the press out for its nonsense out of fear, i think, of upsetting them. the gop has no such hesitation.
same w/ kerry, esp. re: swift boat attacks. unfortunatley he though the nyt and newsweek adn time and cnn would unmask the swifties for the dirty trickster they were wrong. wrong. the msm played the he said/she said game. even though any adult researching the allegations knew they were bogus.
#117
Notice that Rove goes after strengths. The smear campaign didn’t go after a Kerry divorce, it went after the medals.
BOEHLURT #71
With respect to the Dems message/press problem see TRex’s post from the other day.
“ATTACK! ATTACK! ATTAAAAAAAAACK!”
What about “Jeff Gannon,” Eric?
Why was that story buried?
#113 the left is in desperate need of deep pockets. read david brocks’ the ‘republican noise machine’ to see how far out in front of the game the gop is.
specifically, the left needs deep pockets on the issue of media. and how to combat the problem. because it’s almost irrelevent what your message is. if the press won’t treat it fairly, what’s the point or nurturing policy thnk tanks?
Eric – I know I’m joining this discussion when you’re already knee deep, but don’t you think that now that traditional journalists have discovered us in a big way, like Brooks taking after Markos. We in the progressive blogosphere must just keep working our world and the stories. The more impact we create through what we write and what readers become involved in, the more steam we’ll all eventually build together. As for the 2006 & 2008 elections, the progressive blogosphere has arrived. We will be a factor. Now it’s just a matter of time and mass.
I guess Rayne and I are riding same thoughwaves today.
What do you think is best strategy for sane blogs? Given that they are poorly financed and disorganized, and independent minded.
I am distressed by the disparity in resources and media savvy. The GOP has a very slick and well designed blog called voter fraud alert. The posts are like little press releases all ready to go. They tend to focus on what this or that outrageous thing a Dem said, or isolated by very catchy and newsy items. Perfect source for a Dems stole the vote drive is things get close. I cannot find a Democratic counterpart.
With such disparity in resources, what should the sane blogs do? What can they do to best advantage?
#121 good ole jeff gannon. talk about a story hiding in plain sight…the white house briefing room.
who knows why the press ignored it. in the book i ask, what if during the clinton years a former male escort hooked up with a left-wing web site run by a arkansas activist and then was whisked into teh white house w/o having to sit for a formal fbi background check like everyone else? think *that* would have made the cable chat shows?
what i do know is gannonn illustrated the utter contempt the WH has for workign journalists.
#123 Good point, “if the press won’t treat it fairly, what’s the point or nurturing policy thnk tanks?”
The press won’t treat our side fairly. That’s where we should start. Not with why – which is interesting, but with how do we defeat that unfairness?
Also, the right has more money to burn and spread to the think tank trolls, regardless of how effective they are.
The left-wing donors, however, are more circumspect with their money and will expect results.
Besides, with all the liberal activists willing to work for free, what need is there to fund left-wing think tanks?
#123. absolutely, the netroots are the ones w/ momentum right now. (notice when the blogsphere is discussed in terms of politics today, it’s just assumed the topic is the liberal blogs since there’s little real energy or passion on conservagive blogs.)
it’s just that folks have to realize the msm is going to fight them every inch of the way and are going to be incredibly reluctant to act on suggestions, corrections, etc.
As to why the MSM is objectively pro-Bush, and so willing to repeat Right Wing Talking Points — I believe it all goes back to Robert Parry and Gary Webb.
For accurately reporting the Iran-Contra-Cocaine story, both were hounded out of the news room. Gary Webb made one factual error in his reporting — he wrote that it was “official” CIA policy to import cocaine, which turned into contraband arms for the Central American Death Squads.
Of course, importing drugs would never be “official” CIA policy; that it happened is beyond dispute. But for this error, Gary Webb was hounded out of the business by the NY Times, LA Times, WaPo, and many others — his own paper repudiated what they had published.
That the Narco-Contra operation was run out of VP GHW Bush’s office is the point journalistic survival instinct and honest reporting diverged. With the crucifixion of Gary Webb, reporters learned that saying bad things about the Bushes is the real Third Rail of American Politics.
Some rightwing think tanks are close to being frauds. Heritage has admitted that it does little original research, but is a kind of think tank middle man that repackages. Also, places like Brookings, and even bland old Rand, while often doing objective research in social sciences, are more objective, so less useful for partisan warfare.
But what wonders some of those right wing shops are for he-said-she-said journalism. What is the cure for that. My favored one is for some more Dr. Dean therapy, but done more aggresively.
Taylor, if we keep doing the same things we’ve been doing and don’t really acknowledge the attention from the msm, people who are checking us out due to all the who-struck-john might actually be able to make up their own minds. Oh, wait…
wesgpc – neurophius, someone else (sorry, I have serious mommybrain today, sick child, no sleep) and I began a discussion about that very thing the other night and I haven’t been able to get back to it. It seems to me we if we know how they do it, even with volunteers we should be able to put something similar together.
Once it’s in place funding will follow. unless there is a hidden one already?
Hi Eric:
I’d like to hear about your book tour. Did you ever have an interview with someone who you wrote critically about in the book (Like ABC’s The Note?) Were they defensive? Apologetic? Hostile? Dismissive?
Second: Have the people behind the spreading the claims of “liberal media bias” (Media Research Center as well as Rush, Hannity, etc.) commented on your book?
Actually, there’s more money for “liberal” causes overall than conservative ones–but much of that money goes to social service or to public-minded projects like PBS etc. The right has been much more strategic in targeting funding for explicitly partisan and/or ideological think tanks, magazines, blogs, etc. This is changing, but not quickly enough!
#123 Boehlert: Maybe the left should take a cue from drug companies and Abramoff. Sponsor a private jet outtings to Scottish golf resorts, and/or Dubai’s latest indoor ski resort…You know, something really over the top. On the guest list: Sumner Redstone, Les Moonves, Rubert Murdoch, and a few dozen supermodels, playboy bunnies, and anyone else Shirlington limo thinks might make be a good party guest (doesn’t Shirlington have some exceptional expertise on “party guests?”).
Anyway as grandma would say, what’s good for the goose…
Eric @ 126
Re Jeff Gannon. . . So the WH has contempt for working journalists? Fine. I can’t belive that the journalists in the press room sat back on Gannon. As you say, if he’d been from Arkansas a couple of years back . . . Could it be – deep breath here – that the WH Press is somewhat ashamed of their behavior re Monica that they didn’t want to go that route again?
Something about preparing to fight the last war comes to mind. . .
90: The fairness doctrine, interesting, could be less fair in a two party system.
94: I come across as pimping Rethug talking points… oh boy, diversity, I don’t take comfort in the pile up.
#135: Seems like they have more parties with more booze. Saw a pic of Russert hugging some GOP apparatchic (Prince of Darkness) at some croby right wing think tank blast. Maybe that would work -more parties with freebies for the press.
More TRex.
“Don’t dignify their charges with an answer. It’s time to seize the narrative, by force. Stop trying to justify yourself to those people. Treat them with contempt and disgust. Flick their accusations aside and then go for the jugular.
“Reverend Dobson, you’re afraid of homosexuals because of your own secret homosexual tendencies, aren’t you?”
“Ms Malkin, would it be fair to say that you hate immigrants because you yourself are an ‘anchor baby’ of immigrant parents?”
“Mr. Hinderaker, this discussion of the DHS is interesting, but what I really want to know is why your kids aren’t fighting in Iraq and supporting the troops in a meaningful way?”
See how easy it is, kids? The fact of the matter is that the people we are fighting are hurting our country and others. Their ignorance and arrogance is costing us our democracy and our lives, not to mention the lives of thousands of innocent people in other nations. We do not have to answer to them. We only have to call them to account. Stop defending yourself. The only real defense against this crowd is a good offense.
Now, go get em.”
http://www.firedoglake.com/200…..-the-tape/
#133. no word yet from the note. (fyi, the wash monthly just published an excerpt of my note chapter.) but that’s not surprising since the main msm reaction to the book has been, i don’t exist which makes it even easier to avoid dealing with the questions raised it book.
in other words, the msm reaction has been utterly predictable and simply re-inforces what i wrote.
Eric, do you think there is a way to overcome the institutional ownership of the big media companies who control the “mainstream press” today? If so what is your strategy to address this?
http://www.corporations.org/media/
ppp 137- that was my one and only Reagan impression and was meant waggishly, not as a don’t-open-your-mouth-around-here-with-that-shit.
#133. the book was reviewed by national review online, which whined about how i don’t take right-wing critism of the press seriously, and that all they’re really trying to do is make the press stronger and better. i don’t buy it. i think it’s obvious they want to dismantle the press.
ppp #137: you are a bit too concise for me to know what you meant by your comment.
I often think about ways to Mary Mapes their asses – to expose them for their laziness and their bias – a little Absence of Malice action, if you will
mommybrain at 3:19 p.m.
I recall we were having a somewhat disjointed conversation (due to being on the blog at different times) on the subject of talking points and the creation of a virtual war room of the left. It is my impression that the RNC coordinates a daily message in conjunction with the White House and congressional leadership offices and distributes it to interested parties such as right wing radio talk show hosts and bloggers so they can speak in a chorus.
Witness the recent tsunami of “cut and run” references, including by MSM people like Noron O’Donnough who repeated it over and over as if it was some kind of objective description of reality.
The question is how those of us on the left can create something to counter that, and part of the problem may be that Democrats do in fact have a hard time producing a consistent message.
We have us. We understand that the press rolled over for Bush and will keep rolling. This understanding is enough to go to battle with if we bloggers are willing to use the phone, emails, call-in radio, and snail mail. Every time a story is biased, call up NBC or NPR and say, “Your story was unfair and biased against me and my friends (family, town, region). I felt very insulted by your approach that demeaned a whole catagory of citizens. I demand equal time for our side. When will you reprot our side of this story?’
#146: looks like they already have the blogsource for tons of juicy Democratic voter fraud outrages. It is very slick and looks very well financed.
#146. it’s true. just try imagine how bad the press coverage of bush would have been *w/o* the blogs.
just try imagine how bad the press coverage of bush would have been *w/o* the blogs.
omg ! we’d all be reading from the original German Text
Eric says that the press wants to ignore him and the book. To the other readers here, “Who would you like to see Eric discuss this issue with to increase visibility on this issue to the rest of America?”
How can we help make that happen?
The other reason the MSM has become Lapdogs for the Right Wing — there is no punishment for ridiculing Democrats.
The Clinton Campaign in 1992 was brilliant, in that The War Room anticipated GOP attacks, and outflanked the MSM with pre-buttals.
Once they took office, everything fell apart — instead of holding their cards close to the vest, the decision making process was done in public. They got killed on NannyGate and TravelGate and Gays in the Military, and HillaryCare was the last straw; they had played into every right wing narrative of the last 40 years, and the Democrats got killed in 1994.
The lessons of this rout were learned taken to heart by the GOP, and ignored by the Democrats.
Deliberate in private, and control the narrative in public. Whoever lays out the narrative in public first, controls the narrative.
#151
Diane Reem would be my suggestion.
neurophius at 3:26 p.m.
Part of the problem with “cut and run” was that I even heard Democrats using it (by way of denial). We cannot let the right define the terms of the debate.
#146: Part of the Republican’s ability to create this talking points phenom is their command-and-control culture. They believe in top-down discipline. Democrats don’t, and progressive media tends to also pursue a decentralized, debate-heavy model which favors original opinion over parroting manufactured narratives. Philosophically, this seems preferable to me. Tactically, it’s a mess.
@ 150, 3:30pm
Yeah, I wonder what would become of us during the Bush era WITHOUT the internet. Other than some kind of samizdat network, we’d be out of luck.
#151. so true. there often is no downside, career-wise, to ridiculing democrats or chasing phony whitewater stories. in fact, you get invited on tv and win journalism awards.
#144: That’s beautiful!
#151 diane reem passed. wouldn’t have me on. in fact, i haven’t been invited on a single one of npr’s national programs.
Max Cleland roused all us rabble with a great speech in which he used the term “correct and recover” in place of ‘cut and run”. “Correct and Recover” is full of implications: We’re headed in the wrong direction and need to “Correct” our course; “Recover” our footing so our soldiers can stay alive. I fully expected that to be all over town in a matter of days but I Was Wrong. Nary a peep nor parrot did I hear.
Max Cleland ain’t exactly a shy, retiring gentleman. I wonder why not one Dem. picked it up? Cleland speaks all over the country.
Eric Boehlert at 159–how incredibly depressing that Diane Reem passed on you. Did she at least say why?
#155: the resulting lack of balance certainly helps frame the debate: what things are acceptable as reasonable objects of investigatino and which are not. Dem voter fraud (sure!), GOP voter fraud (no way! are you a sore loser?). Even someting as basic as honoring and serving veterans and soldiers is framed in a partisan way. The coordinated GOP PR effort works wonders in framing debate and setting standards for acceptable topics of discussion. Facts seem secondary.
What can us uncoordinated rabid lambs do about that? We’re rabid, so no longer herd together well at all, I guess.
spocko 3:30 p.m.
“Who would you like to see Eric discuss this issue with to increase visibility on this issue to the rest of America?”
Larry King, Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper, Noron O’Donnough, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Katie Couric and whoever the other network anchors are now (I never watch them, but many people do), and of course Keith Olbermann, just for starters; many of them would not be very friendly, but smoking out their biases for their viewers to see would have value in itself, making people aware of the problem.
boehlert at 106 said. but the magazine biz is a tough one. that type of publication is almost guaranteed to lost money. who knows how many millions murdoch has lost propping up weekly standard (not to mention the nypost, which i think has lost more than $250 Million since ruprter bought it.)
Isn’t that the problem in a nutshell – the corporatocracy can afford to support money-losing media as long as it props up their corrupt system, in which they more than recoup their losses. (That’s what Rich Lowery means when he calls TNR a “loss leader,” it wasn’t a faux pas.) For the left, there’s no monetary reward in subsidizing truth in reporting.
I had a conversation with Sam Seder when he was on his book tour. I said, “Why can’t we have a Sam Seder or Eric Boehlert in a press conference with Bush or Rummy or Condi?”
Imagine this: Sam or Eric in a press conference. Cell phone in one ear, webcam on laptop broadcasting the press conference live to subscribers. Bloggers suggest questions or provide damning evidence in real time during the conference. Producers feed those questions/research to Sam or Eric. Sell the feed on premium Air America. Finally the liberals and the blogs can ask questions almost directly.”
This is doable, and it would be a nice coordination between air America, bloggers and the an smart press person.
with the research capability of a few bloggers in real time so they can be the angel
159# Which makes the point that the rethugs have been so effective that even npr is running scared all the time. I can hardly bear to listen anymore (’cept some good local programing) and I used to always have it on in the morning and evening to get my news. Now if I try to listen, I end up spacing it out.
Eric Boehlert at 159–have you been invited to speak on The Daily Show or The Colbert Report? Again, preaching to the converted at that point, but you’re getting broader exposure and increasing book sales.
151 – Terri Gross, Walter Cronkite.
Our fights to get to fair elections:
*Fair media
*Fair and legal vote counting
We have to fight those 2 battles before we can get down to the work of campaigns, like supporting good candidates.
What’s the best way to fight? To win? What weapons? Should we stop analyzing / responding to the enemy propogandists? Who can be targeted to advance our cause – the most bang for the effort? For instance, taking down Lieberman with Lamont is brilliant.
Come sit by me shooogarp.
We MUST be on the attack at all times. NEVER answer their phony “charges.”
Love what Biden said today about Cheney.
#160. no reason why from reem. then again we haven’t received reasons from any of the npr shows. i guess the topic of the press and the presidency is not one that listeners would be interested. (how do i make that smiking symbol?)
timewarp #166: I think you bring up a good point. Both profit and nonprofit local press often much better than national. Can local press be an entry point for blogs to make a difference?
boehlert 3:13 pm — in re: Guckert/Gannon – I noted especially your choice of words in the preface regarding this particular character: “…a former GOP male escort…” Heh. This made me laugh; I couldn’t really make out which of the two parts were “former”, having been given up, the GOP part or the male escort part. Heh. The Guckert/Gannon situation was the absolute essence of the media’s complicity in this administration’s manipulation of the public. I still cannot understand to this day how a two-bit man-whore could get within spitting range of the president on a daily basis without the media telling the public…unless the room was full of whores and it was no big whoop.
wesgpc 3:18pm — what has been bothering me for sometime now is the repeated appearance of certain relationships between so-called think tanks of the right and criminal activity. Heritage Foundation and its progeny, TownHall.com, in particular — every publicly identified payola recipient to date has been a contributing author/editor at TownHall and/or Heritage.
At what point does DoJ step up and investigate them…or have we finally reached a point where infiltration of every government agency is so rife that the connection will never be seen?
#162. i wish. i’m telling you, nobody w/in the msm wants anything to do w/ even raising questions that are addressed in the book. period. i understand…it’s their club, they make the rules and i’ve said mean things about them. or actually, said mean things about their work.
#170: I agree. I think Biden should have ticked off ten the very big things Cheney has been wrong about rather than polls, but he finally has the right attitude.
142: It is not always the case, especially in The U.S., that someone who disagrees with the left is further to the right.
#172 – I live in NYC, and I listen to the Brian Lehrer show (have you tried that or Leonard Lopate, Eric – if not, you should!) almost every day, not just for the coverage of local issues, but a local perspective on nat’l issues.
Eric Boehlert @ #171: Surprising that NPR’s often snarky “On The Media” wouldn’t be a likely choice. Or is “On the Media” produced by PRI, like “This American Life?”
Rayne #173: Heritage is a disguised PR shop, not a think tank. Even CATO does origiinal economic analyises, its crazy and wrong 90% of the time, but they put their cards on the table. I’ve never seen anything original from Heritage. The don’t even try.
But for he-said-she-said, Heritage is beaut. What can be don about it? That’s my question.
#172. yes. god bless brain lehrer. i’ll be on july 3.
and while i’m at it, god bless amy goodman who had me on recently.
Which brings me to where the the blogs go wrong.
There is no profit in attacking Ann Coulter — she is so far out there, any publicity is good publicity.
The Right Wing hasn’t co-opted the Media by attacking the Liberals that are quoted — they attacked the media for liberal bias.
When Matt Lauer and the TODAY Show feet are held to the fire for booking Ann Coulter, then we will make progress.
The way to get the MSM to get off the right wing laps is to make it painful to remain there.
The good news — even with all of the Right Wing pro-Bush bias in the MSM, Bush and the GOP are in the tank; think how bad it would be if the MSM did their job.
The bad news — The DC Dems have been conditioned like beaten curs, and don’t know how to take advantage of the opportunity.
Which is why the blogosphere love Ned Lamont — it is a perfect carrot and stick opportunity, to get the timid Democrats off their butts!!!
What did Biden say about Cheney?
178 – On the Media is produced by WNYC (Local npr) – its a really good idea.
I hesitate to jump in here because I don’t own the book. It’s on my wish list though. :)
We have lots of options for fighting the media on this. One of the reasons they’re losing people to blogs or apathy is that the slanted reporting of the media is obvious to everyone, if not overtly, then on some evisceral level–people know they’re being lied to. They’re starved for the truth and resent those who are supposed to but fail to provide it.
Even back in the 80’s, polls indicated that people didn’t trust the media.
So our motto should be “Let Truth be the Scoop” and we should communicate that to the media whenever possible. We aren’t stealing their readership. Jon Stewart isn’t stealing their viewers. They can boost their readership/viewership by honest reporting and analysis. If one of the major players would try it…and prove my point, the rest would follow.
It’s a bottom-line/profit issue.
Just IMO.
wesgpc in #76 asked about the effectiveness of media countermeasures and the media’s response. I think this is an important question. Were the measures effective? Can they be imporived? What would happen in the advertisers were also targeted?
neurophius 163.
Great. I agree. Now help me out here. What pitch will get them to be convinced that Eric is the guy to have on their show?
If they haven’t had him on, why? Do they not want to be confronted with this info? Do they think it isn’t controversial enough or just not as interesting as some other media issue pushed by the Right Wing Noise machine.
(and by the way, that is something that lots of people don’t get, there are PR people behind all these experts at think tanks pitching them 24/7 for these shows.)
So it sounds like the question of the day is why is the media so profoundly uninterested in Boehlert’s critique? Because they are not arguing with it or rebutting it in any way; they are simply not giving Lapdogs or Boehlert any play.
Can’t beleive I mis-typed my own name!
Wow, I’m actually on time for today’s FDL Salon. I read FDL daily. re: ck #181: I agree taking down Ann gives her publicity, but others are buying it for her as well. A smackdown is still a smackdown.
Eric:
Both your and Ann Coulter’s book were released at about the same time. The the (relative) lack of attention your work has gotten in the press just more of the “lapdog” tendency? Or is the press selectively masochistic about criticism of itself — i.e. when Bernard Goldberg released Bias, it was like he was everywhere simultaneously.
#180. correct. when right-wingers write factually challenged books about media bias, the msm throws open their arms and says, ‘tell how awful we are.’ when a book from left, whose footnotes are not made up (hello ann), the msm shows no interest in having that ‘debate.’
the larger point here isn’t about book p.r. challenges, but how the msm treats its critics on the left and the right so differently.
Eric –
Have you talked to Fresh Air? I’ll bet Terry Gross will do an interview.
#186. correct. to date, nobody within the msm has, in any serious way, argued my book is inaccurate or wrong.
@ boehlert #174
Oh, so the MSM don’t invite you to their little shows because you were mean to them?
When I think about all the exposure Bernard Goldberg got for his book that’s long on rhetoric yet thin on evidence, and filled with all sorts of personal grudges you can shake a stick at, all I could say is LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL!!!!11
#191. no. fresh air has passed on the book.
One of the problems is the lack of a booking operation for writers like Eric. Goldberg and Coulter are both backed by PR machines. Individual presses can only do so much, but conservative think tanks and other groups chip in by ordering mass amounts of conservative books, thus artifically elevating the popularity of the books, raising their ranks on Amazon, etc., and making them more viable for the MSM to notice….just one of the many ways they’ve gamed the system as it currently stands.
ck #181: When Matt Lauer and the TODAY Show feet are held to the fire for booking Ann Coulter, then we will make progress.
___
I kind of disagree. First time I actually watched Coulter. Seemed to me that Lauer wanted to confront her with her BS. But frankly he seemed ill prepared and not as quick on his feet as Coulter. Same with Letterman and O’Reilly. Is Lauer any less of an entertainer than Letterman.
Another query I have (and maybe I am being snotty here): How many of the TV and radio media news stars are capable of really doing news and analysis? Many of the reporters surely our, I can see it in their stories. But the anchors and big shots, I am not so sure. How many of them are mainly entertainers?
Pardon me but the Gannon story is more than just a hooker in the press room.
More like in the bed room.
He had at least 22 overnight visits to the white house. He signed in one day and signed out the next.
Who was he visiting with overnight? sleepover?
Bush is gay and Jiffy lube is his “boyfriend.”
We know Bush’s prediliction for bald men.
#195. true. altho perhaps that practice has slowed lately. i noticed hugh hewitt’s new book is currently ranked at no. 90,011 at amazon. ouch.
Mr. Boehlert, I have not read the book, so I apologize if you’ve already addressed this question: Do you anticipate the MSM changing tack regarding what types of books they focus on depending on who is in power? Lets say the next administration is democractic. Will right-wing books be pushed to the side in favor of more liberal writers?
eric,40:”yes, the media are out to make money”
While this is true and part of the American way, that is not the whole problem. To have a viable press, they need to earn enough money to stay open. The problem is media concentration in a few hands, most of them not traditional media enterprises, but conglomerates like GE and Disney that own broadcast channels, and of course newspaper moguls who own dozens of rags throughout the country.
It has gotten to the point where to control a large percentage of America’s media outlets, you only need to have a few of the media oligarchs in your pocket. And of course, this favors the GOP which is the traditional party of the corporate oligarchy.
Media concentration is the big villain in the problem of the lapdog press, if not the biggest.
I was one of those kids that was picked on in grade school. I don’t even know how it got started, but I was not a bad kid – really!
But what I learned from that is once you are on the “outs” with a herd of bullies, there is NOTHING you can do to get back in. The only thing you can do is wait to get to high school and then form your own circle — become so cool that the kids who once shunned you will be hanging around and subtly copying.
What I am saying is that this “batch” of the msm is hopeless, but there will be a new crop coming along soon (thankfuly overly made up blonde bimbos have a very short shelf life) and if the blogs and smaller press outlets and books like Erics keep at it, things will turn around. That is how the GOP did it, but the thing is it doesn’t have to take so long this time.
Also – get the book into the hands of artists, particularly perfoming artists with a high profile and particularly really young ones. If performers can be politicized again, I think it would make a huge difference. As much as I want to ridicule Angelina Jolie, I think that her process of being politicized could go on with any number of issues. And the press ALWAYS wants to hang out with the cool kids – er the stars. Sorry for all the rambling!
Eric, I don’t know how much longer you can stick around, but thsi has been incredible today.
Thanks so much for taking the time with us – you’re the best!
So, would it help if we sent messages to shows like Diane Rehm (I fear she is just too cozy with all the major elite media types, but still)and maybe Teri Groce, requesting they interview Eric. Tell them how good his book is and how fascinating a discussion of it would be?
Yes, I do think NPR runs scared of the right-wingers these days, but they’re still ahead of the networksand most major newspapers in depth and fairness. I am truly saddened to hear that they have been avoiding “Lapdogs.” Did they interview Bernie Goldberg when his books accusing the media of liberal bias came out?
wesgpc @ 3:51 pm (#197) – It’s not such a snotty question. I refer to many of the new anchors as “spokesmodels”. They seem to be able to read the copy, but have little understanding. ABC just went through two of them, and it looks to me like NBC hired one. CNN seems to be full of them.
Re the 9/11 truth movement. Any thoughts when the press mite cover some of the engineers and scientists who say the “official” story is total bullshit? That towers didn’t fall from jet fuel?
Jet fuel burns at 1,200 degrees, on a good day, and steel requires 2,500 to 3,000 degrees to melt. Yet there was red hot dripping metal at ground zero for weeks.
http://www.physics911.net/
Remember: it took about 10 years for the JFK assination/Warren Commission to get revealed as total BS too.
Your thoughts?
#199. no way. right-wing books simply are not pushed aside in favor of liberal ones.
overly made up blonde bimbos
timewarp,
that’s big lipped, overly made up blonde bimbos
I am with orange #201. There is a great graphic posted on that above that says a lot. Is that your comment, orange? I’ve also read studies that show fewer original stories per year, but avaialble at more outlets for same five or six corporations. I was hopeful when McClatchy bought Knight-Ridder, but not after I found out that McClatchy was going to turn around and sell all the big Ridder papers. Seems like a vicious spiral.
Thank you , Eric.
Masochist that I am, I’m thoroughly enjoying the book. Thanks for being here today.
#203. absolutely. i think polite requests to npr would help.
Jessica 196
Ding, Ding, Ding! We have a winner!
Eric…
I know you cover the “Swift Boat” episode in your book, but do you compare and contrast it with your own reporting on Bush’s military records? (not that I have a personal agenda or anything, asking this question… )
hmmm . . . maybe Markos could send out a Kos Signal — BUY THIS BOOK!!!
if only those damn’d squadrons of rabid venomous lambs would pay attention to him!!!
maybe an Atrios signal . . .
Hmmm, that didn’t come out right. Should have said I’m enjoying the outrage.
I regret having jumped in late. I’m gonna have to get this book. I long for a return to normalcy (read: sanity) in our democracy and media. Wishful thinking? I like to think not.
yes!, yes! Eric, thanks so much for being with us today – please come back to ‘the lake’whenever you can
#212 hey paul.
ugh. the swifties. it was the first chapter of the book i actually wrote. and probably the angriest. basically, the press just completely walked away from its traditional fact-check, truth-telling role durign national campaign and refused to call the swifties out for what they were; dirty tricksters.
as for bush adn the national guard. unlike the swift boat story, which was built on lies, the press never showed that same enthusiams re: busn and NG even tho it was built on facts. (i.e. bush’s own military records.) and this was before the cbs controversy. once that hit, the press ran for the hills.
wesgpc 3:45pm — you and I and a number of progressives KNOW that Heritage is a right-wing PR firm, but the general public, the considerable portion of right-wing voters and the IRS do NOT know that, based on Heritage’s 501(c)3 status as a “charitable organization”. There is also the nasty little coincidence of Heritage’s age and the timing of the assault on the media — they are virtually the same age.
For all FirePups consideration: HR 501, Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act — I dare you to pound your representatives about the reasons why this bill was buried in committee under the 108th Congress and has not gotten consideration under the 109th Congress.
Any chance we’ll see danrather.blogspot.com? Hehe
it’s been fun. much thanks to FDL for having me.
cheers.
#218: Eric, not switfboat and Bush air reserve stories just the kind of places where frontal assualt by Democratic politicians in media faces would be useful, and absent that, by blogs?
Why is GOP noise more effective than Dem? Is it the coordination, or the money and deep pockets power, behind it?
Eric – so I gather you don’t buy into the idea that the corporations that run the news agencies have a substantial influence on their reporting? Sorry if I missed a comment of yours on that issue, but I have seen some discussion here from others.
Any story that hurts Bush is a one day story; any smear that hurts Democrats is on endless loop on cable TV . . .
What’s wrong with this picture?
Thanks Eric. This has been a lot of fun and stimulating. What can we do? This is one of the things we can do. I’m inspired to start calling programs and giving them a hard time for ignoring “liberal” books and author interviews and “liberal” points of view.
BTW – This works well in bookstores for Black History Month (”You mean that whites don’t want to learn about Black history? Where is the display table?!!) or Women’s History. I recently demanded to see Al Gore’s book out front – not hidden away in ecology. Lots of people are very sensitive about being fair. When you call them out, they back down!
Mary’s message for the day: Make bullies and cowards back down.
Mussolini said that fascism “places highly concentrated power in the hands of a self-selected elite from whom all authority flows to lesser elites, such as law enforcement, intellectuals, and the media.”
That is where we are at. The media believe they are “lesser elites.” Just look at how the condescend to bloggers. The media receives power flowing from the administration, and to retain that power (access) they must continue to regurgitate the administration talking points.
I think the MSM genuinely love Bush. I think that many of them think he’s a genius, many of them want him to be declared king, and some may think he might be a god. The argument about “the corporate bosses” can only go so far. They jump with joy at any smidgen of good news. They look like they want to cry whenever there’s bad news. The MSM love this man. That’s f—ed up…
ck and cujo, I’ve been operating under the assumption that nobody on the right wing side of the MSM believes anything they write, that it’s all about money and power and being one of the cool kids. The idea that anyone could be a true believer is incredibly depressing.
Another resource for FirePups on Media:
Media Reform Information Center
It’s that particular chart you see upon opening this link that bugs the hell out of me. If you own stock in a media company, you need to consider shareholder activism — or we need to do it as a group by buying a handful of shares and getting in the faces of the boards of directors.
The media loves a good fight. I think that we should give ‘em one with this book.
“Dear ABC:
Eric Boehlert said The Note is “openly hostile toward Democrats.” They are in the bag with the GOP and their talking points. Clearly this effects your news coverage. Is that correct? Do you agree? Disagree? If you disagree why aren’t you confronting Eric for what he has printed in his book?”
And if they don’t bite go to CBS and say, “ABC is a GOP talking points shop. Boehlert’s got proof. Why not bust ABC with it? Or are you scared of ABC?”
Rayne 229: Ooooooh shareholder activism. I like it. Wasn’t there an idea somewhere recently to write legislation making shareholders responsible if the corporations they’re invested in commit criminal acts?
BTW, thanks for coming here to discuss your book, Lapdogs, Eric.
What incredible bravery to come and chat with these venomous, rabid lambs. Heh. Thanks again.
#230 Your’re talking sweet music, now.
Rayne @ 4:10 pm (#232) – What incredible bravery to come and chat with these venomous, rabid lambs.
Reminds me, see the nurse on your way out, Eric. Thanks for stopping by.
anjinsan at 4:08 pm –
The Right Wing loves power. They believe it is their God given right to exercise power.
Because their self righteousness is absolute, anything they do or say in service of that end is both necessary and right.
They believe in themselves — they believe they can do no wrong.
Scary and depressing . . .
ck, it totally is. Part of my hope for the future hinged on some of those characters being cynical, self-interested hacks who’d flip immediately if the power base ever changed hands. I think I’m gonna need that beer at Rock Bottom when I get there. I’m off. Everybody have a great Sunday. :)
It’s easy to understand the MSM reluctance to discuss “Lapdogs” and eagerness to discuss “we-are-so-awful!” drivel when you remember this: Journalism is dead. Infotainment rules. Gossip is easy and cheap. In-depth reporting is difficult and not cheap. And besides, the people who have their hands on our country right now have a vested interest in the continuing ingnorance of the electorate.
I can’t remember who pointed this out recently, but in television we are the product. The clients are the advertisers, the product is the eyeballs, and programming is only bait. You don’t want the bait to, in any way, cause the product to think.
There are no news anchors. There are no discussion moderators. The program is called Red vs Blue, and there are only gameshow hosts.
This is why internet neutrality is so important. Can you think of any area of public discourse in the country that is not saturated by commericialism? Even PBS has commercials these days. The internet provides the only uncompromized public square.
Eric, the MSM will not talk to you because your book pulls back the curtain and reveals that the Wizard (the MSM) is a fake. They can’t see you. You can’t exist.
Eric, if you are still here–
Do you have a publicist who could send us contact information for the shows you would like to be invited on so that we can send them our requests that they have you on?
LindaR @ 4:20 pm (#237) – Sure, and next you’re going to tell me professional wrestling is fake.
Unfortunately, there does seem to be an emphasis on entertainment over journalism. To me, that still doesn’t explain what I perceive to be a right-wing bias in the reporting. Either I’m wrong, which is certainly possible, or there’s something more than pure entertainment going on.
Media concentration is the big villain in the problem of the lapdog press, if not the biggest.
Just me, but I think the left would be better advised to go to shareholders and fund managers and point out the obvious, media concentration has not been a financial success and that there are serious sums of money to be made in media breakup and spin offs. Once the idea takes hold the media empires will melt like the European monarchies after WWI.
Boehlert – have you read Neil Chenoweth’s book on Murdoch? Are you familiar with his work? I ask because I think it would be good to tie together media criticism with reporting on the business of media.
Small side note, one of the things I learned from Chenoweth’s book is that Bill Casey, Reagan’s campaign manager, sat on the Board of Directors of Capital Cities Corp., the then parent company of ABC (producer of Nightline).
Is there a new thread yet? They don’t always show up when I refresh my browser.
Alice Marshall @ 4:33 pm (#240) – That’s a wonderfully viral idea.
Someone wrote a while back, talking about mergers in general and high-tech mergers in particular, that more corporations die of indigestion than of starvation. By that he meant that mergers often work against the interests of the companies involved, because the corporate cultures don’t mesh, the product lines interfere or are too diverse, or other problems related to trying to make to unlike things alike. Even when the two companies are in the same field, the result can be problematical. Wish I could remember who wrote that article, but it was a good one.
#237 So right on. Thanks for this clarity.
“There are no news anchors. There are no discussion moderators. The program is called Red vs Blue, and there are only gameshow hosts.”
Since they are no longer reporters, they are just another power locale, like Korea. Only more powerful. So let’s figure out ways to take away their power. I also suggest that we reject trying to get their attention or induce them to improve. Let’s call them the opposition and fight them. No more complaining. They are on the other side, not ours. We don’t ask them for anything. We want to take away their power to lie, deceive, hide, confiscate our access to the public airwaves, and destroy democracy. They are worthy foes, but we have our founding fathers and democracy on our side.
BAD lapdog! DOWN!
Zengerle has just apologized to Steve Gilliard:
ck… read ck again and again…
brilliant observations
read them again
yes, thanks very much to Eric Boehlert of coming by today. Great discussion.
re: my last (#242) – That was David Packard, co-founder of Hewlett-Packard, who said that.
alice, 240:”…concentration has not been a financial success and that there are serious sums of money to be made in media breakup and spin offs.”
This is interesting because what this is saying is that the bottom line, profits, may be meager, and dividends to the stockholders may be even more meager. But when merger and spinoff time comes around, the well-positioned suits, directors, and fat cats make out like bandits.
Anyway, here is an interesting site (Columbia Journalism Review) that gives a lot of interesting data on the handful of mega-media giants (”Who Owns What”), which by they way, does not include the NY Times, who are puny by comparison with some of these giants.
Anybody who needs to be scared by what is happening with media concentration need only to look into Clear Channel Broadcasting, who were very much involved in Swiftboating Kerry. The Columbia site has info on them too.
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owner…..meline.asp
Rayne at 229:
There are activists who have been re-educating shareholders about their invetsment company’s track record. There was a case where a lawsuit from a group- of Burmese peasants against Unical Oil was settled and the Burmese got money.
A friend of mine did a documentary about it and it showed how people can reach the shareholders and change the outcome of what looked like an impossible case.
You’re onto something.
#244:
I certainly agree with these comments by ck:
The Right Wing hasn’t co-opted the Media by attacking the Liberals that are quoted %u2014 they attacked the media for liberal bias.
The way to get the MSM to get off the right wing laps is to make it painful to remain there.
I agree with this too, which makes me not feel too good:
The bad news %u2014 The DC Dems have been conditioned like beaten curs, and don’t know how to take advantage of the opportunity.
Bummer! I’m reading the book. In fact, I was reading it, fell asleep in the hammock (it’s 93 here), woke up and started reading again. Just got it yesterday and am almost finished with the f**ing Swiftboater chapter.
Saw Helen Thomas on C-SPAN yesterday as an aside.
lotus 445
Oh, I see. What Greenwald did was much worse than TNR’s failure to ascertain the genuineness of Gillard’s e-mail…so let’s focus on Greenwald from now on, and let TNR off the hook…
ot…sorry
I got to say, feingold is fuhriggin incredible!
you HAVE to see his interview posted over at c and L…man, he is hitting the NAIL on the head on every issue…it’s like he reads our posts here at firedoglake.
everyone MUST download that interview and watch it
feingold is gonna be on the ticket next election, either as president or vice, I don’t know, but he WILL be there
new thread
njr at 4:45 pm –
thanks for the props!!! *blush*
I tried to construct a narrative, as to why the MSM is in the tank for Bush (from 130 on) — after that, random observations.
Billmon has parallel observations –
Making the News Fit the Spin
http://billmon.org/archives/002481.html
While I enjoy the levity and outrage that Keith brings to cable news and the work of Air America, there is nobody that compares to Amy Goodman (and Juan Gonzalez). Her intelligence and honesty and curiosity is beyond compare, imho. She is alone in being beholden to NO ONE and it shows. Democracy Now! is a must read for me daily.
Bill Moyers used to be very like her before this preznit got enthroned.
God, it is so hard to keep track of the conflicting messages from the Kos chip, the FDL chip, and the Kobe chip . . .
urk! ACK!!! gurgle sput . . .
Kobe says there ack!!!
there are no chips — there are no chips — there are no chips . . .
Sorry I am late to this, but:
“the press didn’t like clinton, it hated gore, it thought kerry was out-classed and makes fun of reid, pelosi etc. “
Don’t they realize how insane this is? That they would make fun of/ not like ANY of these people …. and yet suck up to BUSH?
I am beginning to think they are all insane. This is not rational thought. KERRY was “outclassed” — by BUSH?
I sincerely apologize for being late to the party, I was driving accross Missouri desperately looking for wireless internet connect in the middle of nowhere. Thanks so much to Pach and everyone else for handling a great discussion, and to Eric for stopping by and chatting. It’s a superb thread.
Jane — you went above and beyond the call of duty setting up this post, let alone driving all around the wilds of Missouri. Thanks so much for your dedication.
Eric (in case you come back). Thanks very much for all your good work. If the byline is Boehlert, I’ll read it. I actually read all of Lapdogs and “enjoyed” it. (This may seems odd, but I often cannot read many of the books discussing the MSM, war, Bush, etc. I get too mad or too depressed.) Again, thanks for stopping by.
And, from a first-time poster (looooong-time lurker), you firepups are so wonderful. Thanks to you all, too.
Beth
Eric:
Many thanks for your fine work. It’s truly about what may prove to be the defining issue of our time.
I’ve posted an appreciation here.
I am almost finsihed with Eric’s book and it’s very very good, but up in the thread Eric says the reason that the media aquieses to the right wing is fear and I just don’t think that’s it. Let’s face facts. Everything today is about money. It’s cynical I know, but it’s true. This is about money, too. The media conglomerates have looked at their bottom line and asked themselves, “What party allows me to make more money and operate unimpeded? And they have answered overwhelmingly: The Republicans. Therefore, it is in their best interest to keep the Republicans in power. And they will do it any way they can.
If the Democrats are in power, they can make money, look they did with Clinton, but they want to continue to buy up vast shares of market and they want to make sure that no further regulations prevent that or bust up their monopolies. They realize the Democrat ideals are a threat to their future. And they realize that Republicans don’t care about a free and healthy press as long as the media continues to help them propagate their talking points and trash their opponents.
Everything is always about money and the bottom line. This is absolutely no exception.
Eric, rather than wait for a freebie from your publisher to review, I went out and bought your book the day it was released. I loved it, but found myself getting really angry much of the time! Good job. But, have you been on any radio shows, Air America, or any of the MSM cable shows, or C-Span? Did I miss something, or have you been largely ignored?
Isn’t a big part of the problem the dems lack of “talking points.” The most recent example is the flap over Reid’s boxing tickets. It was up to bloggers to investigate and come up with the information that he did nothing wrong, that they weren’t really tickets, McCain couldn’t pay for his and the commision had to donate the money that he gave them since they were just some sort of ringside folding seat they’d set up for them. I have yet to hear an official dem offer this truthful explanation on a talk show.Reid himself has not bothered to explain it.
The same think happened over the swift boat bullshit. I read of one dem preparing to go on a talk show to discuss it and she called the Kerry campaign to ask for the talking points and she says she was told they didn’t have any.
The presses laziness, he said-she said reporting is also another factor. They don’t seem to understand that everyone is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. Whether its done out of malice or laziness is the question or both.
I read Lapdogs and while I appreciate that the author outlined and explained a number of key points as to why the press has become a lapdog to the administration, there was almost nothing new in the pages and no comprehensible conclusion; it seemed to me that he just threw a number of reason at the page and hoped some of them would stick.
And what about the future? How will this issue, the syncophantic media, play out? He doesn’t seem to address this, nor does he address what measure can be taken to get the media to become objective again.
As it stands now the media has become largely unbelievable, it simply buys into the administrations talking points and pretends its doing its jobs. It isn’t. I noticed today that both Fox and CNN are running out of viewers, as have the networks. And why not? A case in point: Andy Cooper has a flicker of fame by asking a few tough questions about NO and now he’s lobbing softballs at Jolie, as if she actually matters in the scheme of things. Pathetic.
To me, the lack of coverage on Downing Street memo says it all. It shameful.