I view this is a childishly simpleminded attempt to cause me to relinquish control IF I accept the premise that they are capable of destroying America. While I agree they are the enemy, they are one among many. America enemies who have weapons that present a greater danger some Middle Eastern terrorist with a bomb. It seems to me that America could easily "take care" of these people without killing 4,000, maiming 28,000, borrowing billions from the Chinese (who are a more serious enemy) and spending trillions. The phrase pyrrhic victory comes to mind. Although on a smaller scale, didn't England solve the problem of constant terrorists bombings without ruining their country?
2.) Is "the media" capable of actually reporting serious issues IN FRONT OF THE STORY instead of after the fact/ Does anyone believe that the financial crisis just happened? Isn't it true that the financial "press", like Larry Kudlow for example, just shills for corporations and only report a financial picture that favors Wall Street?
Newsrooms Revolt!
Profound sadness was my dominant emotion as I watched one of the cable news shows this morning. Two attractive young 'political analysts', a handsome African American and a winsome blonde, (guess their politics), 'illuminated' the presidential race. Vacuous and incendiary were the only modifiers that came to my mind. Whatever your politics, whichever news channel you favor, the diet is poisonous.
When I joined CNN in 1989, I was ecstatic. To be part of an organization that could spend 24 hours a day covering important issues around the world was a dream come true. While the vision didn't always comport with reality, it matched up much of the time. As time went by and competition emerged, we all know what happened. Ratings began to drive agendas and heat over light became the norm. In recent years, the lip gloss quotient (it works for both genders) has become more important than IQ. The definition of fair and balanced has nothing to do with truth and is satisfied if voices from the far left and right are encouraged to spew their dogma in angry debate. The anchors are there to simply fuel the fire with no duty to steer guests to substantive conversation, much less to insist on facts over fatuous rhetoric.
Unfortunately, many people still get their dose of news from these locales. Watching favored channels, they absorb material that usually comports with their established world-view. Opposing positions are presented as fodder for their gladiators to shoot down or lampoon by the force of personality alone, or, regardless of the content, as demonstrating equilibrium in the discussion.
We are in one of the most critical presidential races in our lifetimes. The issues are monumental; a collapsing economy, the never-ending war in Iraq, global climate change. Yet we watch as the networks loop Rev. Wright sound bites (with not a single one offering up the easily accessed sermons in long form so viewers can form a reasoned opinion about the man and his agenda), or maybe they debate the phrase 'a typical white person' ad nauseam. I have no problem challenging Barack Obama on his association with the minister, but as with most stories, a few phrases from Wright's career do nothing to inform people about the man or his mission. It is the duty of the media to offer the big picture on this (and so many other stories) so viewers can make a reasoned decision, but unless I've missed it, no news organization has tried. The purveyors of news must bravely offer information that may challenge the audience despite the backlash from time to time.
The press knows how influential it is in shaping attitudes and opinions. However, the mind-numbing drivel most of us subject ourselves to serves only to polarize and solidify preconceived positions; so much so, that when actual facts slip into discussion, they are dismissed as mere partisan ammunition. There are exceptions to this rule, but that equation should be reversed.
Anchors have abdicated their role as educated inquisitors; some because, simply, they are unqualified or unprepared, others because they would rather cater to their guests or the corporate bottom line than to the mission to bring truth to the airwaves. And yes, there is objective truth, or at least legitimate facts from which people may divine their own conclusions.
I could harp on the trivial or tabloid character of the material that passes for news, but that beef is for another day. Instead, it is time for serious revolt by the many journalists who cringe at the current product they are selling. I applauded yesterday as Brian Kilmeade walked off set when his companions on Fox and Friends blathered on insanely about Wright and again when Chris Wallace chastised them for their diarrheic oratory on the subject. This response should be repeated on the other outlets as well.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
PART1
I have three simple questions I am anxious for any real news organization to answer. I am college educated, come from a good family, raised in Ohio, lived in Chicago, NYC. My sister is a Real Estate VP in NYC (lived not from from ground zero on 911 - survived), my brother is an assistant warden and SWAT team commander with the Ohio Bureau of Rehabilitation. I am not a racist, sexist or xenophobe. My questions are these:
1.) While I can understand the amiable goal of wanting to help other countries advance and be more Democratic can someone explain why the hell is the current administration so afraid of Middle-Eastern terrorists that they are willing to destroy America to "give them Democracy"? The Russians tried for 50 years to destroy us, had the actual capacity to do it and we beat them - why should we ruin ourselves to prevent "terrorists following me home to kill my children".
PART 2
3.) How are the economics of wholesale loss of American jobs going to China in exchange of being able to buy cheap, dangerous, low quality junk that is cheap ONLY because of theft of intellectual property, trade imbalances and no labor or environmental restrictions? If China could produce at American quality they would. It seems logical to me that for China could to produce goods at American quality levels the cost would be the same, perhaps more with the cost of transportation going up.
4.) What has the current administration done that warrants a continuation of their policies?
As far as I can tell they have done everything ineptly, illegally, improperly and care nothing for Americans or the Constitution. I have no doubt that Democrats will win by a landslide next election no matter who the nominee, but it is mind-boggling to me that any American can have more affinity for a political party than for America or be willingly led like sheep by loudmouth, know nothing broadcasters (right or left). I have personal knowledge of many Republicans who feel the same and have voted Democratic in the preliminary and will vote Democrat in the general election - not because they are stupid enough to practice "election tricks" Rush Limbaugh suggests. (I have yet to hear a broadcaster suggest that Republicans vote Democratic because the Republicans resume' does not warrant continuation yet many have suggested Rush is the reason - is "the media" crazy or what?)
PART II
I have never seen so many people dedicated to the continuous "discussion" of interminably idiotic premises or more focused on empty, smart-aleck reparte' anywhere on the earth (maybe 7th grade). That there are "producers" who continuously come up with and get paid for this "stuff" is a tribute to both stupidity and/or cronyism. How in the world can these people, or TV news itself, expect to gain any credence, respect or stave off extinction with this type of conduct.
MSNBC president Steve Capas waxed poetic about preserving the legend of NBC. This is the best he can do? Very few newscasters deserve or command any respect anymore. Maybe it is the purpose of "the powers that be" to fill the airwaves with drivel then no one will watch or believe when something of significance really does happen.
I am glad there there are at least a few of you left.......Perhaps you can get together and start a real network...
BRAVO Catherine !!!!!
Catherine,
It is refreshing to hear your comments. Truer words have never been written. I was beginning to think that TV news was destined to be completely populated by various idiots, numb skulls and self-congratulating, ignorant "hosts". The current state of television must be purposeful, to what end I cannot fathom. Why so many shows are just smiling, simple-minded talking heads is beyond me. If anecdotal evidence has any weight, it seems to me that what the networks are accomplishing is fewer viewers.
Cris Wallace is to be applauded for his commentary - it was perfectly true. It is true Fox and Friends , both show and hosts, are demonstrably ignorant, unintelligent, childish and partial - but to be fair - they are not alone. Try looking at MSNBC. I challenge you to look at what passes for news there without getting sick. They have everything from Tim Russert ("old guard" smart-aleck), Chuck Todd (racebaiting "NBC Political Director"), Joe Scarborough (sexist, racist, loudmouth self-described son-of-the south), Mika Brzezinski (yes woman) - all of their midday shows are populated with, as you put it, "vacuous" idiots who all appear to have little if any interviewing skill and less knowledge of the subject. It seems they (male and female) are more interested in hitting time marks and looking cute rather than giving substance to the news. Guests seem to be booked by volume rather than the quality of their contribution.
Bravo! The difference between the lowest soap opera and what passes for news grows narrower and narrower. More journalists and commentators need to revolt, insist on some kind of reporting, fact verification, and field work, not just on site coverage at "events" but research in the bowels of libraries and gov't archives. It isn't that glamorous, but it is fundamental to a democracy. People rise up about their rights and need to vote but an uniformed vote is worse than no vote at all. A small circle of corporations controlling data and information makes real citizenship nearly impossible.
If it bleeds, it leads is not enough. And it's cheap to put up rows of talking heads rather than solid white papers or good five minute reports based on carefully checked research, but that's what we need. I am sure there is some pleasant way to slip real facts in between the schmaltz and quips.
Go for it journalists. Earn your right to be called The Fourth Estate.
Whether you have the time to read all the comments or not please take the time to send the below link to this article to the MSM. The three email address below the link are the only ones I have but your favorites can be found easily enough.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/catherine-crier/newsrooms-revolt_b_92884.html
caffertyfile@cnn.com - for Jack Cafferty
loudobbs@cnn.com - for Lou Dobbs
letters@msnbc.com - for Keith Olberman
A reader posted a letter to the editor in our local paper stating she wasn't going to vote for Obama because he didn't put his hand over his heart when hearing the national anthem, and he didn't wear a flag pin on his lapel. She said 'he wasn't patriotic and actions speak louder than words.' Wonder how she came to these conclusions?????
Great post. Cable news is poisonous, and it mystifies me that so many people watch hour after hour and let it inform their views. People have grown so used to the artificial conflicts and phony analysis, they don't realize they're watching shadows on the wall of a cave and not seeing anything close to reality.
When is Crime Stories coming back? Maybe you can cover it there.
My question to Catherine Cryer is this: Did you suggest that the main stream media present the more thorough reporting of the accusations against Clinton and her supporters of racism? I have heard so many people try to excuse, explain, and re-consider the issues of racism brought on by Rev. Wright but little or no real or even distorted reporting just before the South Carolina primary. I could easily agree with your sentiment, Catherine, but I think it is important to do the same review over all of the issues in this election and the way the media approached the candidates disparately.
Relax, she was responding to the news of the day. Gosh you are the perfect example of her argument. You are spitting back talking head points. It was a singular point to expound on, an example.
She never once defended nor attacked Obama or Clinton, she made a topical point of reference.
As an aside, when all the hundreds of news outlets were bought up by as few as seven major owners and no one cried "monopoly", what did we think would happen? When "news" was then thrust up as competition for "entertainment" programs, what were we to expect would happen? When "news" was burdened with producing programming dollars at the same rate as other types of programming did we expect to see truth in the raw state? When laws were changed to allow networks to discontinue development of "public service broadcasting" in order to keep their licenses on OUR airwaves, did we expect better? When "do anything for a buck broadcasting" was allowed to replace public service as a duty of networks, then the end was nigh. It is no wonder we have the type of media we now have.
Good article. Too little info and too much sensationalism in the media. But I wonder if the comments would be the same if you would have wrote this article a couple of weeks ago and replace Obama with McCain and Wright with Hagee. The same people crying for full disclosure on Wright are the same people who labeled James Dobson or Pat Robertson based soley on soundbits.
THANK YOU MS. CRIER
Catherine Crier always has an intelligent point of view, I love that, and no one ever blames the news, even when thay are to blame. This election will most likely be won by swaying votes and opinions, based less on real facts and more by the disgusted voice of a news pundit slanting and ranting and railing drivel on a particular candidate. The media would have us think that this presidential race should not be run til the end..and it would be bad for the party...pshaw!! .that may be there opinion, but lets face reality this contest will run to the end, as it should afterall it is a contest for the highest job in the land. Would you give up , because some pundit says it's for the good of the party............Believe me the party will survive.
visionar7 you are so right. The "news" outlets run 24/7 Britney/Lindsey/Paris/Trash/errors/partial/ nonsense then blame the public by saying "it's what we want to see".
The polls they rely on for that conclusion is as erroneous as the election polls have proven to be. Don't any of these people understand marketing. I have a marketing degree and in Marketing 101 it is taught that the context and content of the questions, the demographics, the sample size and other factors, skillfully used, can develop any conclusion you want. It is maddening beyond belief to hear these fools tout polls as if it is fact. There are many who do not answer or answer pollsters with answers not reflecting their true opinion, then all to often "reporters" simply add in their own personal view and pitch it as truth.
It is a shame that the First Amendment's guarantee of Freedom of the Press has been totally given up by the fascist American owned news organizations. When folks like Rupert Murdoch are allowed to control what we get to read and hear about we are in deep do do. Sort of reminds me of that james Bond movie with Jonathan Pryce....
I'm a doctor. We have a code of ethics with consequences if they're breeched. Doesn't the media?
Thank you Catherine. I was wondering when someone with some experience in cable-news media would take on the task of challenging their former colleagues to all the more return to the roots of responsible journalism.
You obviously missed the debacle at CNN a few weeks ago. Chez Pazienza, (a contributor to HP) was fired because he writes an edgy blog that dares to have an opinion other than the "do anything to get the ratings" mind set at CNN, FNN & MSNBC.
It is about time someone called the "news" shows for presenting drivel as news, complete with false laughs. TCM ANYONE?
Beautiful, well said and Thank You
I was told on CNN that the entire sermon was available, but I cannot remember where he said to look.
Wel hoopesaz, Keith Olberman had no choice. The coverage was so one-sided over the last 7 years that no one on the dems or liberal side was even given a voice. They simply were not invited on the shows. Thank goodness for Keith. As rar as Rachel Maddow (the gal from AirAmerica), she does not make excuses for her position but at least she articulates intelligently and I feel very fairly. She is a rhodes scholar. I am happy for the Keith Olbermanns out there as they are few and far between.
I didn't know Rachel was a Rhodes Scholar...makes sense, because she makes a lot of sense and is a welcome addition to Countdown with Keith Olbermann.
I'm affraid it's already too late. The American public has been so dumbed down that I don't know how it is even possible anymore to reverse the trend.
thank you Ms. Crier; i too have noted the 30-second sound bytes meant to inform on the run......its ridiculous! and the endless repetition of the Rev. Wright tape.....and it seems to be a contagion that spreads throughout the channels......all have to run it or else.......i guess.....thanks ms. crier; miss you lots and wish you were mainstream so we could get some issues discussed for an hour or so, not minute sections divided by 3 or 4 minute commercials.....just awful really......and i must say the plan is working, im certainly turned off
I would like to suggest that we go to CNN.com and the other "noise" networks and post to the blogs on their site.
May I suggest starting with ABC. The comments on their website are as vile and ignorant as anything that I have ever heard about on the Fox website. There are often 10 vile republicans for every one democratic poster. You can't help but to jump in to defend your fellow democrat that is being ganged up on.
I think the media began to change towards the end of the Vietnam era and Watergate. The horrific visuals of American casualties and death, including the pictures of flag-draped coffins returning from Vietnam, provided a wakeup call to the public and brought about a hue and cry for policy change. This coverage also counterbalanced the 'love it or leave it crowd' in this country that held a conservative view on our role over there. Coupled with the draft and the 'no end in sight' strategy, this coverage had a huge impact on US policy. We don't have that today. Cronkite and Severeid wer trusted as truth-tellers.
CNN, MSNBC, and FOXNEWS have reached parity with one another. I never thought that I would see the day that this would happen.
Appreciate your comments, Catherine, and remember you well from the CNN days. In fact, only last week I was lamenting how good it was under Ted Turner and what it has now become.
Loading comments…
Before the largest crowd of his campaign, Democratic presidential contender Barack...
**UPDATE 7/25** ThinkProgress now reports that the bar...
John McCain's famously cozy relationship with the press is getting a bit testy. Taking questions in...
There is one more John McCain gaffe that...
As we have observed throughout the last several years,...
In a flagrant political act, the State Department has...
Posted March 22, 2008 | 10:48 AM (EST)