Lawrence.com

pecos (anonymous) says...

you know... you make a good point but are you really ready for nerds across our nation to force themselves to realize that politics could be more than just a past time and potentially be more important than the "bandwagon format" that they usually digest politics in?

May 10, 2006 at 2:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

OnShakedown (Chris Tackett) says...

"is the president's saying exactly the same thing about both nominees important enough to warrant viewer's attention?"

Absolutely. The issue isn't that he has the same speech writer or even that he said the same thing twice. To me (and a lot of people, i imagine) the issue is the apparent dishonesty.

Porter Goss was the best man for the job, until he wasn't.
Michael Hayden is the best man for the job, but he isn't.
Harriet Myers was the best woman for the job, until she wasn't.
Michael Brown was doing a heck of a job, even though he wasn't.
Iraq had something to do with 9-11, even though they didn't.
Iraq had WMD, even though they didn't.
We were going to get Osama dead or alive, until we weren't.
Warrantless spying is legal, even though it isn't.
and on and on....

It's not that we prefer him to rephrase his wording with Hayden, or that that would even make a difference. It's that people are tired of being lied to. I know I am.

May 10, 2006 at 8:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

OnShakedown (Chris Tackett) says...

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/TDS-...

This link may work a little better for some folks.

May 10, 2006 at 8:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

OnShakedown (Chris Tackett) says...

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05...

May 10, 2006 at 8:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Joel (Joel Mathis) says...

And I'd say good for Jon Stewart, but in the grand scheme of things it's a relatively minor "gotcha" that, if given too much attention, obscures very real policy issues with the nomination.

When Jon Stewart does something like, say, uncover a secret NSA warrantless wiretapping program -- the kind of digging done by the MSM, for which it has received more grief than credit -- give me a call.

May 10, 2006 at 10:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

toreador (Michael Austin) says...

Joel sounds a little, um, angsty on this whole subject. Is that a word?

Does it really matter how or what form it gets out there as long as it gets people involved?

And looking at the local news channels with their "specials" for ratings such as the pedophiles on the net, the scare tactics for ratings, well I will stick with Stuart.

May 10, 2006 at 10:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Joel (Joel Mathis) says...

Not angsty.

You're right that many local TV news stations are crap, offering bloody sensationalism rather than real news.

May 10, 2006 at 10:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

davidryan (David Ryan) says...

Joel --

Of course, it's not the mainstream media in toto, so to speak, that uncovered the warrantless wiretapping. It was a single outlet, The New York Times.

One can't reasonably credit the entirety of mass journalism with the scoop.

And were one news outlet metonymically to stand for the profession as a whole, one could just as reasonably claim that FOX News' stories on the topic suggest that the entire mass journalism profession was concerned with reporting things about it which have no basis in fact:

E.g.: http://mediamatters.org/items/2006040...

A claim, of course, that no one would make.

May 10, 2006 at 10:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

thetomdotdot (anonymous) says...

When news outlets blur the line by becoming entertainment channels, its only because we the people have demanded this of them. Jon Stewart is certainly not the problem here.

I believe there's just as much good reporting as ever, it just isn't necessarily what pops up on the screen first.

May 10, 2006 at 10:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

OnShakedown (Chris Tackett) says...

Davidryan: you make a good point.

"Of course, it's not the mainstream media in toto, so to speak, that uncovered the warrantless wiretapping. It was a single outlet, The New York Times.

One can't reasonably credit the entirety of mass journalism with the scoop."

But even that is an overstatement, for it was only one reporter (and a few researchers) that broke the story. And even then, we later learned that he and the nytimes had sat on the story *for a year*!

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/st...

What was going on in the Fall of 2004?

I mean, it's great the story was released, and it's a credit to that reporter and the nytimes for getting us to that point. But why the delay?

And even when the story did come out, how was it received and elaborated on (or not) by the media?

Not very well.

Here, mediamatters compares the way the warrantless-spying story and lewinsky stories were picked up and amplified.

http://mediamatters.org/items/2006012...

May 10, 2006 at 11:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lazz (anonymous) says...

doesn't anybody subscribe to playboy anymore?

May 10, 2006 at 1:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Joel (Joel Mathis) says...

David, of course, is right that the NYT is *not* the MSM ... but that statement ignores how much the MSM takes its cues from the Times.

That aside, I'm interested in the continual comparisons to the Lewinsky matter, as though anything that's happened in the Bush Administration is directly comparable. It's not. Here's why.

First, let me concede the media loves a good sex scandal. They're easy to understand and easy to tell. It's not our best feature, but there it is.

That's not the biggest difference here, though. Let's look at the three big political scandals of the last generation or so, leading up to the election in 2000. What were they? Clinton-Lewinsky, Iran-Contra and Watergate.

What did they have in common? President from one party; Congress controlled by the other. This makes a huge difference in the politics of a situation, and how it gets covered. Why? Because members of opposition parties are more likely to launch Congressional investigations that turn a one-time story into an ongoing series of news articles.

These days, of course, the presidency and the Congress are both controlled by the same party. Given that political reality, I can't imagine allegations that would trigger the kinds of Congressional hearings that kept us watching Oliver North during the summer of 87.

That's the real environment right now. So when the Washington Post doesn't poll for impeachment -- and everybody gripes that they did it to Clinton -- I understand why: Impeachment is (I can say with 99 percent confidence) not going to happen with this Congress, which is on the president's side, unlike the Clinton presidency, where it clearly was not.

So what's the media to do? They can report the story, say, about NSA -- and they did. But if that news doesn't spark actions and, well, news, on the parts of officials who can do something about it then the trail sometimes goes cold. "Bush still warrantless wiretapping" is not news; "Congress begins investigation" is.

Hey, the media has its shortcomings. But context is important.

May 10, 2006 at 1:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

toreador (Michael Austin) says...

And in ways it seems the media and the people give up after awhile. There are only so many times you can bring up how bad this administration is, and have people ignore it, before you just kind of give up.

It is a big juggernaut we can throw rocks at, but until the next election all we can really do is sit back and shake our heads in disbelief.

May 10, 2006 at 1:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

lazz (anonymous) says...

Big Juggernauts ... EXACTLY what I'm talkin' about there, toreador ...

May 10, 2006 at 2:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

toreador (Michael Austin) says...

gutterboy!

How can you not, they sell it at like a dollar an issue! AND it has politics in it!

May 10, 2006 at 3:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

OnShakedown (Chris Tackett) says...

Here's another Daily Show clip that fits into this discussion: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05...

May 10, 2006 at 3:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Joel (Joel Mathis) says...

Saw that one on CNN the same day.

May 10, 2006 at 4:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

OnShakedown (Chris Tackett) says...

sorry, wasn't able to comment on the clip earlier. It is another example of TDS showing older news clips to point out current hypocrisy. This example is Donald Rumsfeld lying about not lying about WMD.

Joel, while you, myself, and others surely saw the exchange between McGovern and Rumsfeld on CNN or other news channels, we learned of this story through the filter of that particular channel. As illustrated by video montage in the Daily Show clip above.

Sure, the commentary on TDS also goes through a filter, but the benefit that show has (at least in my view) is that they actively point out the double-standards, hypocrisy and out-right lying that takes place in The Media (usually the TV Media since it works better for their use).

Notice how McGovern was called a "heckler", asked what his beef with Rumsfeld was, asked to give Rumsfeld credit for allowing him speak (as if that is some royal privelege in this country), and just generally made a point of making McGovern appear as the bad guy, while the true root of the issue should have been the fact Rumsfeld lied about his prior comments on WMD.

Only the well-informed critical-thinkers can pick up on these subtle forms of bias in television news. The average viewer will fail to make these distinctions. It takes the blogs, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report to connect these dots and point out the obvious: The Media is not doing its job.

May 10, 2006 at 4:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Joel (Joel Mathis) says...

Shakedown: Hadn't seen the Paula Zaun and Fox stuff in that TDS clip you linked to. What I was referring to was CNN's "Situation Room," which actually put up Rumsfeld's Meet the Press quote the afternoon the CIA guy confronted him.

Like I've said before, the "media" is useful shorthand -- which I use, admittedly -- but it's not really that monolithic. Some organizations do good jobs, some do not so good jobs, and all of them have their high and low moments.

As far as the New York Times sitting on the NSA story for a year; I wasn't there, so I don't know the inside story. What Bill Keller has said is that (A) the president said reporting the story would threaten national security and (B) additional reporting made the story better, to the point that concern (A) was resolved in Keller's mind. The media isn't supposed to do the govt's bidding, but if I was told a story of mine would endanger people, that would at least make me think twice about publishing -- we're humans after all. There's been implications that the Times was doing the Administration's bidding -- but if that was true, the story never would've seen the light of day.

If "the media" wasn't doing it's job, shakedown, you wouldn't know a lot of the things you know.

May 10, 2006 at 5:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Joel (Joel Mathis) says...

BTW, "Congressional Briefing" is back in action, thanks to Shakedown's challenges. No Quesadilla recipes, so far.

May 10, 2006 at 6:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

ladylaw (Terry Bush) says...

Late to discussion and didn't not read all comments word for word..but wanted to add my two cents anyway.... The idea that comedy writers may be more able to deliver messages was again brought home to me recently....
Check out http://politicalpartypoop.com/?p=485 Article starting "I'm embarassed to say I missed this..."
It points out that the the hillareous Boondocks clip (where there's a great Samuel Jackson character (his voice) doing a rant about "there's things you know you don't know..." etc... , is using EXACTLY the same words as D Rumsfeld...

There is a clip of both there on that site. So can compare them.

So, once again, the satire or humor writers make people think...

Hmm. Does this mean sarcasm (Yo Mama) is the best way of teaching Americans new ideas?

May 10, 2006 at 10:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

OnShakedown (Chris Tackett) says...

Joel,

Not sure how i keep getting tangled up with you! : ) It's certainly not intentional. I hope you know these l.com discussions on the media aren't aimed at you, so i hope you don't take it personally I appreciate your thoughts, and i think we're in agreement, just not to the same degree.

We would both agree that "the media" could be doing a better job. There have been some great stories come out in the past few years, (the two pulitzer winners are great examples) but there's room to improve. Right. yes. fanstastic.

Well, i just think it is A LOT worse than simply having a little room to improve. And whether it's fair or not, i blame a large number of the problems our country is facing on "the media." The most glaring example is how they didn't ask the tough questions before we went into Iraq and hundreds of thousands of people are dead as a result. That bothers me.

And it may be unfair, but i have a seriously critical eye on the media right now. (i know, i know, complaining about "the media" is pretty abstract, but my main issues are with tv and print journalists in the main networks and newspapers aka the "mainstream media"). "They" lost credibility over Iraq, as well as with other issues over the past few years. And while i give credit when its due, there's a lot of people like me that think they have a long way to go before they earn back our trust.

May 11, 2006 at midnight ( permalink | suggest removal )

OnShakedown (Chris Tackett) says...

And to comment a bit on your last two points:

"If "the media" wasn't doing it's job, shakedown, you wouldn't know a lot of the things you know."

Thanks, Captain Obvious ; ) I guess I should clarify. Yes, I know a lot because of the media. And maybe i shouldn't bite the hand that feeds me. But I don't try to pretend like "the media" doesn't exist. Obviously, I get all my info from "the media." Thank you, Media! If i left the impression that i don't think there is any good journalism taking place right now, it was by accident. Murry Waas and David Shuster have been doing great, as has Helen Thomas (when she has a chance to ask a question). And i can't forget the pulitzer folks. But I just think we could do better. A LOT better. Too many journalists are going along to get along and shit is hitting the fan in their wake. And it sucks.

May 11, 2006 at 12:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

OnShakedown (Chris Tackett) says...

[wow, didn't realize i had written so much. but had to cut that into three comments!]

And finally, just to be nit-picky, i had to counter this statement:

"There's been implications that the Times was doing the Administration's bidding -- but if that was true, the story never would've seen the light of day."

I'm not so sure it's always that black or white. This from the npr piece i posted earlier:

"Times journalists told NPR the approaching release of Risen's book forced senior editors to focus grudgingly on the NSA story. They otherwise would have been scooped in a book by one of their own correspondents. (Risen had been on book leave for the first five months of 2005, according to the Times.)"

So yes, as you suggest, the nytimes is not doing the bidding of the administration to some absolute extreme, otherwise they would have never let this story run, or even begin for that matter.

But when faced with being scooped by a book, written by a nytimes journalist, which would have undoubtedly raised questions about why the nytimes had yet to report on this story or if the journalist had intentionally kept the story from the paper simply for his book (which isn't true, just a possible assumption some could have made), the nytimes decided to publish the story prior to the books release and prevent this discussion. (or the book and story were released close to one another for marketing, profit-driven motives, which would be equally as bad) At least that is one possible scenario.

All this does not mean the nsa-spying story was not still intentionally post-poned to come out after the election. Perhaps the administration actually did tell the times the story would damage nat. security, simply to delay the story and spare the president the challenge of defending the warrantless spying prior to the election. They have since used similar rhetoric, warning journalists to not cover the story any further. I don't know what really happened. Maybe there's a story to be written there...

Remember, this is an administration that outed an undercover CIA agent - one that happened to be working on WMD trafficing related to Iran - for political payback and avoid any obstruction to their plans for war. They aren't immune to lying (no politician is.)

Alright, long-winded answer. sorry for the rambling : )

ps. very glad to see CB back up. Keep up the good work (under all the hats!)

pss. oh, and i HATE emoticons, but threw in a few to let you know i wasn't "yelling" while writing this. And i have to say, it was quite an internal debate while i struggled with whether to use a winking semi colon or some sort of wiggly ampersand "hair". But seriously, no ill-will towards you, more of a perplexed frustration.

May 11, 2006 at 12:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says...

I don't think Jon Stewart broke this one:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washingt...

I am just sick...

May 11, 2006 at 10:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

Joel (Joel Mathis) says...

Shakedown: No offense taken, and none meant.

My basic feeling here is that there's massive amounts of criticism of the MSM ... and that a reminder of the things it does and has done well is useful. That's all.

May 11, 2006 at 10:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

quinno (Patrick Quinn) says...

Life's grand in the Brave New World, ain't it, Bill?

These fascist bastards have burned American civil liberties to cinders--and when the goddam Democrats rotate into office (assuming they conjure up some justification for their continued existence as a political party), they won't undo _any_ of it.

Government won. America lost.

Osama is no doubt delighted.

May 11, 2006 at 11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )

El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says...

Undo it? Ha! Agreed. I found a Pete Stark quote the other day that said it all:

"While I am no fan of this particular program or the partisan process by which it was created, my Democratic colleagues and I have been very clear that we do not want it repealed," Rep. Pete Stark, D-California, said during a congressional hearing. "It is, however, clear to me that changes need to be made."

It referred to the Medicare drug program specifically, but you could insert any program, any party, and nearly any congresscritter and it would read the same...

May 11, 2006 at 11:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )