"...I don't watch Fox..."
Attaboy! Studiously shield yourself from any place that might either present both sides of a story or present the opposite from your chosen side. Sure, hearing both sides might flummox you so much that you'd go into mental vaporlock and not be able to write anything. (Where would the country be without the full complement of articles in your gossip rag?) On the other hand it could eventually bring you some credibility.
Try to keep in mind the fact that Crazy Jeremiah Wright is the spiritual adviser to a guy who in 17 years of listening to hate-fueled anti-America squawking lifted neither finger nor tongue in defense of his country, and that there are people who now want the same disciple to be Commander in Chief. (Such people might stand in need of some emergency therapy, but that's another story.) All voters ought to know about Obama's several unsavory associations, and it's certain that there are a few voters who haven't yet heard about Crazy Jeremiah.
Who Are You Calling a Tabloid?
Working at Us Weekly, I've become accustomed to accusations of sensationalism in celebrity journalism - some of which are not entirely untrue. Sure, we "flooded the zone" with Britney's breakdown, our Hills coverage has been prolific, and we do treat most flash-in-the-pan Hollywood hookups with breathless gusto. Us has been accused of distracting people from the "Important Issues" and the talking heads love to tut-tut about how attention to celebrity gossip is causing the great dumbing-down of American society. But after weeks of watching the mainstream news media's coverage of the Reverend Wright controversy, I'm just fine sticking to the Brangelina beat.
To say the news media's coverage of Reverend Wright has been exhaustive is like saying that Us was mildly interested in Brad Pitt's split from Jennifer Aniston. Or, as Chris Rock said recently, "It's like they gave [Wright] his own channel." More accurately, they gave him several channels. His diatribes were on a never-ending loop and the networks unleashed an army of pundits to discuss whether the connection to Wright made Obama inherently unelectable. Personally I'm surprised none of the news outlets employed our resident Body Language Expert to dissect the relationship's nonverbal cues. (Though in fairness, I don't watch Fox so she could've made an appearance there.)
The true hallmark of sensationalized journalism is ginning up controversy to drive sales, and for the mainstream news media Wright was a tailor-made tabloid icon. With newspaper sales at record lows, network news ratings tanking and 24-hour news channels desperate to fill up all 24 hours, Wright's outbursts were the mainstream media's equivalent of Tom Cruise jumping on Oprah's couch - a train wreck no one could turn away from. And so they milked it, regardless of the impact on the very race they were supposedly covering objectively.
At Us we know that every celebrity breakup has two sides - yet the news media failed to apply that same basic due diligence to the Wright story. Did no one think to interview any of the other parishioners of Trinity United Church? Are we to assume that all 10,000 of them are America-hating racists? Let's not forget that Wright was at one point deemed a nationally recognized, legitimate spiritual figure. (You know, the sort of person you would invite to the White House for a prayer breakfast with other national religious figures if you were in the need of PR redemption after a sex scandal with a certain intern named Monica.)
But you didn't hear about that this week. Nor did you really hear about McCain's new healthcare plan, the fifth anniversary of 'Mission Accomplished,' or even about populist princess Hillary's inability to use the same Mr. Coffee machine that's in pretty much every office or steel plant in America. It was all about the tabloid distraction that is Reverend Wright. I've often been told that I work at the media's favorite guilty pleasure. But this week I'm not feeling that guilty.
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
I subscribe to US weekly...a couple things, the magazine always, ALWAYS falls apart before you are done reading it, and you spend way too much time on nobodies.
Great post. Glad you're still stickin to the Brangelina beat, but any time you feel like hitting the politics/media coverage beat go right ahead. Love to see if this post gets any reaction from the talking heads.
Okay, I went back to get the quote I heard on Hardball with Chris Matthews yesterday, May 5, 2008:
Matthews: "Will anyone be able to explain the importance of someone"s pastor to a presidential election? We"re seeing it, the public has a huge appetite for it, for this story as our ratings prove. The public wants to know more about Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama wants us to think less about him¦"
Okay, now do you all believe that it's not the media, but us and our appetites? Sheesh, Matthews said it, it's got to be right.
Why only Rev. Wright? What about the other candidates pastors? Loop their more inflammatory comments 24/7 and see if any interest is stirred up.
Exactly, which leads us to believe that Chris Matthews has an alternative agenda... As do many of the other corporate sponsored media personalities...
Unlike haffingtonpost that has no agenda whatsoever (sic) ... You still don't get it: it goes to the issue of judgement (Obama's, not Wright's).
Take a look at the MSM. At one time the news was not a moneymaker and the networks were forced, as a public service, to spend so much air time on the news. The networks picked the least watched time slot and anchors were paid accordingly.
Vietnam and Watergate pushed news to the forefront, so much so it suddenly became a big revenue source and the newscasters salaries went up accordingly.
Enter CNN with 24 hr news and the fight for network ratings. Salaries went up and the demographics were such that advertisers targeted well to do, mature audiences. That in turn meant that the news needed to reflect the audience tastes.
All of this combined means our newscasters are by no means in touch with the middle and lower middle class. Their point of view and slant on stories are skewed by their personal and financial positions-as well as the owner of your broadcast company.
MSM has nobody to speak for the majority of Americans. They have an umbilical cord attached to Wall Street and a Faustian contract with the powers that be. If they continue to belabor and act as if there is a liberal slant to news and say it often enough, they get the liberals to defend their liberalism as well as their ideals.
The Huffington Post is a sanctuary for me, as an Obama supporter who does watch the network news, sometimes the BS they shovel is overwhelming, such as the 24/7 coverage or Reverend Wright, and I need to go to a source of information that is on a different wavelength, and for me it here
Sanctuary for me too. Too much infighting in the pol threads though.
I'm voting Dem in Nov - No Matter What.
Might be a couple of others that you might like.
HuffPo misses a couple of things for me.
II prefer NPR for business and money news, and BBC for international news.
Online, Dissident Voice and CounterPunch for high content liberal articles and serious discussion of the Palestinian crisis, etc. DV and CP often show a strong variety of liberal opinion - some are too liberal for me (in some way that could by defined by a neocon, but is "just a bit
much" for me. I don't believe in restricting any rights for an individual, for instance, but, of course, I disagree with the system in which international corporations have the legal standing of citizens).
There's always the Socialist Worker - it still exists and is on line.
I agree 100%. I literally stumbled upon this website some time ago and, like you, it's a sanctuary after watching msm "news". I was a huge fan of cnn, but no longer. They are equivalent to fox, and that lou dobbs......I've fallen out of love with him.
I cannot remember an election, much less a primary, stirring up so many emotions and galvanizing opinions and attitudes. As much as we are crying out for real issues to be debated, I think we all know the real dirty dealings will start the day after the convention. The democrats are profoundly lucky to have such dynamic choices we can raise our emotional levels to such a pitch at this time. Compare this to the past primaries and election efforts.
Unfortunately, whoever wins will be faced with a tremendous set of problems, both foreign and domestic.
Fortunately we have two candidates, for the first time in a long time, that are capable of solving these problems. When one loses, I will vote for the other; as much out of the belief the Republican candidate does not have a grasp on the magnitude of our problems and the lateral processes needed to solve them as the belief our future is better off with either democratic candidate.
Of the two, I want Mr. Obama as he is the candidate of inclusion. It is fortuitous that when our country needs to sacrifice equally, we have the opportunity to have a President in office that represents more than one groomed from birth philosophy. If this does not come about, I will throw my full support behind Ms. Clinton.
We should be celebrating our good fortune, rather than complaining about our wealth of choice.
Hillary Clinton is a republican. She has gone back to her roots. I will NEVER, EVER, EVER vote for Hillary Clinton.
Perhaps you could expand on that? Did she establish this when she was defending some Black Panthers right out of law school? Where and when were these roots established? When the Republicans spent Billions and years investigating her and her husband? Please help me if you have more info!
Lets think about this, shall we. Chris Matthews, a political junkie with no hidden agenda but to bring truth to you and I, said on Hardball yesterday, that the reason HE's been covering the Wright story is because there has been a DEMAND for it, that the "American public" is hungry for more Wright and that the ratings hike just proves what he said... Well, if it's in the ratings, how could a simple "American public" viewer such as myself argue with such logic?
So, far be it for me to condemn such story coverage when in fact it's me and every American out there demanding they cover it... over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over.... Shame on us, the "American public..."
Thank you! Well reasoned and very true (sadly). The good news is that anyone with a brain sees through this and won't let the corporate media steer them any longer. Your article is another confirmation of, how crazy and ruthless, the agenda to knock Barack out of the race. The GOOD NEWS is there's plenty of people that want this historic event to end on a positive note. By campaigning and contributing to Mr. Obama, we can keep him strong. He will crush John Mc100years in the general as soon as this pesky clinton problem is put to bed. Talk about vetting! Shillary is attacking Barack worse than any repuss, and still maintains she's a democrat. Ludicrous! Remember, she DID vote for this life draining war we're mired in. That is a fact that can't be denied. Come on guys/gals, let's work to slay this dragon.
Is the author of this story really comparing having problems with a coffee machine with Wright.
Really, everyone has had problems with vending machines at one point or another, except for elitists of course, who would never even consider using a vending machine.
Let's see, say tomorrow everyone that has had problems with vending machines at some point vote for Clinton and everyone who has had a problem with their pastors saying God D*** America and has never had a problem with a vending machine vote for Obama.
Here is a clip with a link people can verify the importance of Wright for Obama:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/8/194812.shtml
"It was ... at Trinity United Church of Christ on the South Side of Chicago that I met Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., who took me on another journey and introduced me to a man named Jesus Christ. It was the best education I ever had," Obama described his spiritual pilgrimage to a group of church ministers this past June.
And now Wright has called Obama just another politician saying things he does not believe because it is not convenient for him politically.
Well, where to begin?
First off, interviewing some of the other members of that congregation simply makes good sense. It would 'vet' (one way or another) what Rev. Wright's position's were. If you could point to the congregation and find a majority (or even a sizable number of people Senator Obama's age) who hold similar views, then the story would have more weight. IF, however, more people who had heard these things and had put them in the category of, "Well, I can;t agree with THAT, but I do like his views on _________", this would be more believable. As it would indicate that the people in the congregation had engaged in critical thinking of the things Wright said -- which is what it appears Senator Obama did.
Further, I have to wonder if you fall in the same category as the writer seems to be putting Senator Clinton in vis-a-vis the Mr. Coffee. Mr. Coffee is NOT a "vending machine", it is the best known brand of household coffeemaker IN THE WORLD. She's saying that Senator Clinton does not know how to make coffee in her own kitchen, essentially. I don't DRINK coffee, and I know how to operate one of those machines.
Actually, the author of this post was discussing the media's lack of objective coverage. But since you brought it up, I believe the flip side of the story is that Bill and Hillary Clinton have sought the advice and association with Rev. Wright as well. And John McCain has actively sought the endorsements of men who can only be considered mentally unstable and hateful. Do you really think this stuff matters?
And what's with the effort to get the word "elitist" into your post? Is that the new talking point? Why are so many people proud of being stupid? Isn't it the American dream to start with nothing and achieve great things? Instead of disparaging people for collecting knowledge, maybe you should try a little harder to understand the world around you.
This appears to be the case of the student surpassing the teacher. The subject matter was religion, not the spokesman! We should give thanks to the Reverend for starting Mr. Obama's spiritual quest, but it is apparent that Obama has gone beyond the tiny world of Rev. Wright.
Ummm, a Mr. Coffee is not a vending machine, it's a coffee maker that is usable by just about anyone with common sense. You probably have one on your kitchen counter???
Thank you for saying what I have been feeling for a while now. This whole race that isn't really a race is going on, not to humor Hillary, but to sell TV advertising and newspapers.
I have started heavily surfing the net for my news because I can ignore the repetitive trash. And when I do turn to the MSM I find that I have already learned everything they claim as "news."
As soon as I become interested in tabloid news, I know where to look for it.
If you want to support an Afro-Centric racist, be my guest.
To whom are you referring? In order to make such a statement, you must believe that the American Government has never oppressed a people due to origin or skin color or if they did, the oppressed should know their place and not get uppity and demand things like equal rights. You have to be equal to get those!
How about just repudiating a know racist- you. Every little thing that Barack Obama does is amplified and stretched out of proportion, due to the fact that monkeys like you are closet racists. You're a dying breed my fellow simian. Your name is only partly obvious. An insane asylum should be your "residence". Sad to go through life trained to hate and fear. Grow up, it's the only chance you get.
While you continue searching for your white racist. Oh, sorry, I am sure you have found him.
No, keeping the story going is the hallmark of journalistic sensationalism.
Lara:
Thanks for the well-deserved upbraiding of the increasingly sophomoric MSM. As others have pointed out, at least US doesn't pretend to be that which it isn't. What you see is what you get. No disingenuousness.
I have the perfect answer to all the TV media whores. Stop watching. You will learn nothing of value from doing so. There are far better places to get your news and opinion than television and most of the news magazines and newspapers. Use HuffPo, Google news, Yahoo. Use Digg or do some searching on your own. Be creative; anything but believing there is anything of value the Mainstream Media has to offer us.
You must be joking - I think people have lost any sense of perspective. Of course there are problems with the MSM but online journalism is really not a good place to get your news because it's also very biased here. A fair, balanced reporter gives both sides of a story. They simply don't do that here. They want celebrities to keep coming back, although I've never really figured out why since they obviously don't sit around reading the responses and I doubt they ever write the pieces on their own, so they make sure it's "safe" here for them by censuring anyone who disagrees or offers an alternate opinion.
When was the last time a Republican wrote anything here? When was the last time someone wrote something positive about Bush here? When was the last time ANYONE offered an opinion from a different perspective? And I'm not a Republican and Bush is a horrible president but I like hearing a variety of opinions so I can't think about how other people approach issues. This is just celebrity worshiping sycophants.
Although I do appreciate the opportunity to use the word "sycophant" which makes me feel smart.
The problem is that even though the Huffington Post doesn't actually -claim- to be unbiased (it is, after all a blog) it ends up -being- IS more 'balanced and objective" than the MSM.
Yes, there is an Obama bias here. However that doesnt stop them form linking nearly each and every stupid and uniformed, unobjective, and unblanced story the MSM posts.
When this blog actually links to BOTH pro and con, and the msm who profess to be objective cannot show 2 sides to thw Wroght story or bother themselves to point out Clinton's myriad of lies, then there is a severe problem with the MSM.
If all one reads is the Huffington Post, I would tend to agree with you. There are, however, numerous other sites for getting news and opinion. I believe you're the one who must be joking. I am, however, not in the mood to laugh.
A fair, balanced reporter tells the truth. Whether it's left, right, center, top, bottom, whatever. The truth. Based on facts, evidence, reality.
But these people are rare. The overwhelming consensus of scientific evidence for global warming was always juxtaposed with contrary, industry-financed opposing "opinions" as if they were equal. The same for evolutionary theory versus intelligent design.
All but the driest of news reporters (and/or news stories) are biased one way or the other, at least in some amount.
If you are saying that The Huffington Post has a bias towards Progressive ideas, I do not think you would get an argument from me, but if you are then saying somehow that the MSM is less bias, than you are sorely mistaken. I remember a couple of weeks ago I saw Chris Mathews interviewing Senator Jim Webb, just as he was coming out of a hearing with General Petaeus. Senator Webb commented on a number of things, but what he said that stuck me was something Chris Mathews just passed right over, he said that he believed we would start seeing a concerted effort to ratchet up the rhetoric about Iran and he feared that it was meant to prepare US for a confrontation. His comment was not limited to the White House rather the source of the push, as he presented it, seemed multi facetted. Well after the interview I started doing my standard channel surfing for news, Fox, CNN (Blitzer, Beck) CNBC (Kudlow), and one after another there big story was how Iran was such a threat, almost without deviation, as if they were all reading off the same page. Now maybe it was coincidence, but it was most disconcerting, one message, many channels¦
Now, I read Huffpost with an understanding of its bias, but if you are blind to the biases of the MSM you are either ignorant or a fool, you choose.
"Feel smart" is the operative phrase. I see why you remain anonymous. You may be addicted to TV news.
I might not be very smart but I'm smart enough to know that:
1) journalists are supposed to be objective and allow both sides of an issue
2) this is not a newspaper
3) if you make your dog wear Juciy Couture dog outfits, then you should expect your pet to experience stress and anxiety
The real sad fact is this would not be an issue if people were not voting for fantasy policy, fantasy foreign policy and fantasy personality. It seems the stranger Hillary gets the more people vote for her. Would Cronkite
Posted May 5, 2008 | 04:41 PM (EST)