Barack Obama deserves kudos for his newly-announced policies on the Freedom of Information Act and other transparency-related issues. Of course, it will take some time for presidential directives to work their way down through the vast government bureaucracy, where they will encounter resistance due to habit, laziness, and limited resources. But Obama has clearly broken with the past -- in the only way that makes any sense in the information age. The question now is: what are we, the people, going to do with all this information our government is making available?
But it's interesting that, at least on the surface, Obama's approach to the establishment media -- the TV and radio networks, wire services, newspapers and magazines that still cover the White House -- doesn't differ all that much from George W. Bush's. As in, their correspondents are not getting much access. They are tightly managed. The White House press office doesn't say very much, and what it says isn't very revealing. What's more, it's signaling that past press rituals will not necessarily be observed. The Obama team declined to give the New York Times a pre-inauguration interview. Yesterday, the White House didn't even let press photographers in to get some shots of Obama working in the Oval Office, provoking an AP announcement that it would not distribute what amounted to "visual press releases."
Bush and Cheney viewed themselves in a manichean struggle with the forces arrayed against them, a list that includes not jihadists but the federal bureaucracy, the Democratic Party, reality itself! -- and the media. As Jay Rosen has pointed out, they attempted to "de-certify" the media by strangling its access to information and using a variety of alternative, propagandistic avenues to get its message across. This proved disastrous.
Like Bush, Obama appears to view the media agenda in fundamental conflict with his own. But now, the perceived difference isn't ideological. It's programmatic. Obama (correctly, I think) sees the press representing two things that are clear obstacles to his ambitious plans: official Washington and a trivia-obsessed media culture.
First, the official Washington view: There's a certain, Broderesque way of doing things. Be centrist, bipartisan -- especially if you're a Democratic president. Listen to the conservative talking heads who dominate Sunday talk shows, who will advise you to be ... conservative. This world, shaped by the rise of conservative media since the Reagan era, remains several steps behind where the country is, or is ready to be, on politics and policy.
Second, the media culture: The cable maw must be fed with transient panics. Feeding frenzies and micro-scandals dominate. They fuel the chat shows, opinion columns and blogs. These faux crises and dramas, which usually pass with little consequence, can knock a presidential agenda off-stride or even destroy it.
These phenomena reflect the growing insularity of the establishment press over the past generation. They are obstacles both to good journalism and to the kind of bold political reforms Obama is pursuing. He is right to be wary of them. But this doesn't diminish the importance of openness. As a journalist and a citizen, I'd like to see more give-and-take between reporters and the president -- and I expect we will see that. And I want insights on what's happening in the West Wing and OEOB from experienced journalists. What we ultimately get depends not just on Obama's willingness to engage, but on the media's ability to break free of its own outmoded habits and prejudices.
millions in ad revenue. Let's all keep this in mind when we view news
.Its BIG BIG BUSINESS !
The best news program on television today is Comedy Central's Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Democracy Now is also good with a kind of best-of-America indignation. I like MSNBC except that the talking heads merely give their similar takes on the same news items, differing only in style.
The general drift of the news is right wing centrist and this has been the case even since Kaltenbaum in the 1930s. The news serves the advertisers, and the most advertisers are small bore Republicans. Sure, the big corporations would grind you up for dogfood if the sales were there. The kind of people who run small businesses are all kinds but the dogfood pushers among them do it for your moral improvement. Ask them if you want, but they'll tell you without your asking.
THIS IS ABOUT R-E-S-P-E-C-T !!!
when the president visited the WH press corps, he was trying to show some respect and regard for them by making a friendly gesture --- it is unfortunate that neither they nor the punditocracy seems capable of understanding this --- it's about manners and civility, admittedly something the WH press has gotten very little of over the course of the last 8 years, thanks to bushco, who treated the press with utter disregard, disdain and disrespect
by all accounts, the new administration is shaping up to be more transparent and media-friendly than any in recent history --- what a shame that the press and the pundits cannot show a little respect in return
So as not to let NBC off the hook, Chuck Todd, for all of his genuiness, and David Gregory are reflections of the Tom Brokaw establishment posture of NBC News. NBC, even with its establishment apostates of Maddow, Olbermann, Shuster, and (at times Matthews) still doesn't want to be seen as populist and to the left of CNN, CBS, and ABC. So we get Doc Block on (Blank) prison to feed the expoitation of the viewer and the subject as much as we get the false news headlines and prime time TV force fed to the public.
The public has turned away from the MSM, with the exception of the outspoken few reporters and columnist who dig past the consensus and the fluff. Obama knows it from his contact along the campaign rope-lines. MSM is a side show that can be used for mass distribution, but not substantive info.
LucifersHeretic@gmail.com
I've been saying this for years.....the culture of the MSM is getting stale shoving at our faces and ears full of nonsensical tidbits that amplyify the news - - - and degrad those who KNOW news - - - into what Dan Rather (or was it Walter Cronkite) often calls "info-tainment". Let's hope the Obama administration recognizes all the pitfalls to 'dumbing down the public thru the media' and starts informing us people with more intelligence than they give us credit for.
More international news with international personalities doesn't mean that only SOME cable stations get to run it, but that it's the intellectual food of all.
......speaking of Dan Rather.........................looking forward to seeing him back on the tube!
I'd challenge you all to listen to Michael Medved - http://www.michaelmedved.com/ for one full week... before you freak-out that he's a conservative, 90+ of his show has opposing guests and callers. HONEST debate is the only way to make honest decisions... turn the TV off.
Don't you wish you could have reminded the Republican leadership that the media was so biased when they considered nominating someone who had waffled so ineptly about rumors of prior drug use, he made it sound like he got high when his father was in the White House? Who couldn't name the heads of the 2nd and 7th largest countries--two nuclear powers which nearly went to war this decade?
If Wake-up actually believed the media was out to get the Republicans, he would have been apoplectic that they'd nominate a sure loser like George W. Bush. The Republicans must have been masochistically begging to be humiliated--and the media, like the sadist in the old joke, said "No."
But, today, and lately, the daytime media chatter was so bad I had to turn them off! Reminded me when I turned off FOX 7 years ago!
It's incessant, it's vapid, and it' utterly useless.
OLBERMANN AND RACHAEL RULE! But the daytime - well that needs work!
MSNBC! Are you Reading this?
The airwaves used by the media are public property. In the recent past, all television stations had to renew their license to operate every three years. They had to prove that they were meeting the needs and interests of their viewing audience. Then came cable. The FCC made money on leases. Aha, said the non-regulators, we can let the industry go unregulated because there is such a broad offering on cable, that viewers will be able to find information and programmming that will balance itself. This has not happened. In Feb. when the FCC frees up more bandwidth for the auction block for wireless services, the industry will pay dearly for the bandwidth and bring you more of the same on cable, the internet and cell phones. But, you can say --- hey the bandwidths are still in the public domaine and we want the FCC to require that the businesses that use them provide us with fair and balanced news, that opinion shows must call themseives just that and not news and that they require the media to produce diverse entertainment that represents all Americans and isn't a menu of rerun after rerun. You will only get this new FCC to act in your interest if you write and petition. Organize your friends and take the airwaves back. Don't let cable, cell and the internet be taken over by advertising . The FCC can limit it.
I use the mute button a lot..or go to the bathroom. Can there be that many guys with ED ? Guess so.
I've been around media ever since I married 50 years ago, and I can confidently say there's been a change for the worse. So, let's get those letters to the papers going, people. You can still use the computer, just make an envelope and consider using a 42 cent stamp an investment in good government. Only posting to HuffPost or any of the others won't get enough notice. They need to get it with both barrels, and in quantity. Get Busy!
I do it often.
fight with O'Reilly and Fox. Not that I like FOX- I do not. But can Olberman just stop acting like a12 year old ? CNN is better-BBC is good-very business like. I think the Tribune is very through in their coverage of news, most of the time- but no one seems to read much anymore..
AN informed electorate is important to keep politicians accountable. Do not believe political ads & 30 second sound bites...those are misleading. We've got to ' dig deeper' than that.
MC Cain / Palen's sleazy campaign against Obama were the most important factors- that and a financial crisis. Bush made it almost impossible for a Repub to win. Bush did too much damage- even though he's trying to rewrite history. Yes the media covered Obama a lot- mostly due to the way he ran his campaign and his speeches that drew 10's of thousands and inspired many.
Now that was big news..that could not have been IGNORED by anyone. That fact can not be denied. Folks are free to ' spin the facts ' as they wish. Thats what Limbaugh & Hannity do most of the time- they are obsessed with Obama-that should tell us something. Both make millions smearing Obama however they can.
Call me a formerly clueless Republican
He is way too smart for that. But will there be mistakes ? You bet..that goes for any President.
Wow you finally noticed! It was the main strength of his campaign! Why should it change?
Shouldn't be a real problem if you really want to do some true journalism, i.e. working sources at the ground level to get access to information. (Which is very different than dropping to your knees for access to officials.)