Journalists getting a Clue

In the following article "The Press" get a glimpse of the truth about themselves. Now mind you it doesn't mean anything as far as changing what they are, which is just cheap opinion givers, but it's a funny article at least to me.

Tom Brokaw one of the better opinion givers that has inhabited our TV screens over the years shows that what made him one of the better ones is that he has at least a piece of a conscience. He actually recognized that his fellow "Journalists" ignored issues. Oh my god hold my breath, you mean the "news" should be about issues? Well that's just revolutionary.

If you ask a student why they are attending journalism school you almost universally get the same response with slight variations. "I want to make a difference" or "I want to change the world". That's all well and good except for the fact that it's NOT THEIR JOB.

A "Reporters" job is to report facts about a topic or event PERIOD. It is not what passes for News Reporting in today's world. In the book Bias by Bernard Goldberg he explains in great detail how the press distorts, leaves out facts, and shapes a story.

The press are an elitist pack of scum that believe they know better than everyone else, and shape their stories to present their point of view as the gospel according to "The Evening News". The truth however is they are on par with addicts, philanderers and lawyers.

If you Read the following story I hope you enjoy it as I did. You will note though that the only reason they have even caught a glimpse of their reality is because they had turned skills of treachery against one that some of them adore.

Here are some excepts from the article:

 Clinton's exit a preoccupation for reporters

By DAVID BAUDER AP Television Writer NEW YORK (AP) -- Now that Hillary Clinton has ended her bid for the presidency, political journalists are suddenly deprived of one of their favorite stories: When is she going to drop out?

More time was spent talking about when Clinton might call it quits than about how the candidates might deal with the war in Iraq, the high price of gasoline, home foreclosures or the sputtering economy. Or about anything that presumptive Republican nominee John McCain said or did during April and May, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism's analysis of political coverage in newspapers, on Internet sites and on television news.

"It was inappropriate, for journalists especially, to try to cut the process short," NBC News' anchor emeritus, Tom Brokaw, told The Associated Press. "It was an appropriate issue for people to report on, in context, but there was an awful lot of commentary disguised as reporting that gave the impression that people were trying to shove her out of the race."

 Brokaw's old-school attitude often put him at odds with Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann when he joined them for primary night coverage on MSNBC this year. One example was last Tuesday. Brokaw was talking about the contrasts between McCain and Obama when Olbermann interjected about "a third one trying to shoehorn her way" into the coverage. "Well, I think that's unfair, Keith," Brokaw replied. "I don't think she shoehorned her way in. When you look at the states that she won and the popular vote that she piled up, and the number of delegates that she has on her side, she's got real bargaining power in all of this."

Brokaw called all the discussion about Clinton's exit a product of "too much time and too little imagination." "I've always felt that it was not the job of reporters to be like `The Gong Show' and hoot candidates off the stage," said John Harris, editor in chief of the Politico Web site. "You can't count people out before they're out," she said. "Let the process play out. There was an awful lot of not letting the process play out on its own merits but trying in some respects to influence the process."

It's a variation of a criticism faced by political journalists for a half-century now: too much emphasis on the horse race and not enough on issues. Coverage was issue-oriented at the start of this campaign, but degenerated into a lot of stories about process, said Bob Schieffer, host of CBS News' "Face the Nation." The 103 stories on whether or not Clinton should get out were nearly matched by the 100 stories on Obama's remarks about bitter people turning to guns and religion, according to the PEJ's index. There were 243 stories about Obama's former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Comments

[Henry94]

This is a fascinating topic. In my own experience the defining characteristic of journalists is laziness. They go with the flow and accept the prevailing narritive on any given subject. The much derided art of political spin is all about taking control of the narrative because once established it's hard to change it.

The example above is a good one. Instead of the narrative being about Hillary dropping out it could have been about Obama's failure to close the deal.

But Obama won the spin war. Handling the press is easy of course when they want you to win anyway.

[Alison]

Brilliant analysis. When i saw who was behind the Obama Support show for expats in London recently it is clear what this giant charade (aka democratic process) was between Obama and Clinton. One giant self indulgence for media moguls and their outlets with zero subtsance on the actual issues. All you need to succeed is a persona that will sell papers and an army of moronic cheerleaders in the press will get behind you.

[Mahons]

I suppose with Clinton and Obama fairly close on the issues it was natural the media would focus more on the candidates for "news".

[Alison]

I think its the nature and intention of their focus that was the issue here.

[Grizzly Mama / Troll]

Mahons
Point me to an example where the press has focused on the details of any politicians platform

[Frank O'Dwyer]

Henry,

"Handling the press is easy of course when they want you to win anyway."

Is that why most of the stories were negative? 243 + 100 referenced up there. Oh that liberal media.