The Institutionalized Media, And Their Bias Against The New Kid On The Block
On Monday, the esteemed Hugh Hewitt had an interview with Tim Rutten, of the LA Times. I doubt I need not assure anyone that Hugh handed Tim his head—politely, of course. However, what was particularly interesting is that despite Mr. Rutten’s admission that he reads the big guns on the blogosphere, there is still an apparent distaste towards bloggers in general.
For prisoners incarcerated for so long and then are released into society, the term is "institutionalized;" virtually, living in a bubble so long they are unable to adapt to the changing world. Mr. Rutten displays this easily in several exchanges with Hugh. (Transcript excerpts courtesy of Hugh’s faithful and dependable servant, Generalissimo Duane.)
http://www.radioblogger.com/#000930
HH: No, they're not. And they're kind of snarling and vulgar and profane. It's more like a newsroom than a radio show.
TR: Well, you know, there's a lot of name-calling on the right, though.
HH: Where?
TR: I think...there's a not of...not on yours, actually.
HH: Or Powerline's.
TR: The word...you know, the word liar gets thrown around. There's a lot of conspiratorial thinking.
Conspiratorial thinking? I am wondering what "conspiracy" theories Mr. Rutten is referring to. Would it be the forged memos of CBS, or the killing of the John Kerry boast he was in Cambodia? Or is it the lingering doubt that Eason Jordan did not really accuse our troops of shooting and torturing journalists? Come on, Mr. Rutten. The bloggers nailed each of these stories fair and square whereas the MSM decided to skip over them. During Kerry’s entire presidential run, not a single member of the elites in the MSM handed this man a tough question, or they let him get away with the line, "Go to my website and see my plan." When serious bloggers toss around a dirty four-letter word like "liar," we usually have proof to back the claim up.
HH: I'm serious. I think we go about it one mind at a time, and the reason Air America cannot grow an audience is because they're not interested in persuading anyone. They're interested in pummeling perceived enemies, and you know...
TR: Well, I think this circles back to our topic, because I mean, I don't have...I don't know enough about Air America to have an opinion about it, and I have not followed this current scandal that some people see in their finances. I haven't looked at it.
HH: Why hasn't the Times looked at it, Tim?
TR: I don't know. I don't speak for the Times.
I will let him pass on his admission that he has not listened to Air America. I try each day to listen to what the other side is saying, but it would be much like trying to have a debate with a fiver year-old, so it is difficult. However, the finance question caught my attention when Mr. Rutten admitted to not knowing much about the burgeoning scandal. He states later in the exchange over this topic that he does read Michelle Malkin’s site. For those following this scandal, Brian Maloney and Michelle Malkin have formed the vanguard on this subject. If Mr. Rutten does not know about it then it is because he has chosen not to read up on it. Ms. Malkin and Mr. Maloney have but nothing if not thorough on the subject; so thorough that were I a DA investigating this, I would want them in my office with everything they have accumulated thus far.
HH: Now I know that you're busy...what does a senior writer do?
TR: Basically, I hold the hands of distraught colleagues.
HH: Well, there are a lot of them, given the layoffs at the Times.
TR: I'm here for younger writers to come and talk to about the stories they're doing, you know, and...
HH: So, you're the eminence in the back. The gray eminence.
TR: Yeah, or the kibitzer. I mean, I'm like...at this point, I'm like what Murray Kempton said about editorial writers. You know, he said they're the people who come down from the hill after the battle and shoot the wounded?
This was amusing, and I had to laugh at it. I picture people on the editorial staff doing that, yet Mr. Rutten disavows any connection to the editorial board. He writes an occasional book review, and a regular Saturday column called "Regarding Media," which has next-to-nothing to do with the media, in general. Yet, he portrays himself as someone outside the editorial staff doing the jobs of editors. Curious that? Is that not a bit of contradiction?
HH: So why...is it just the worst run newspaper in America of a major?
TR: No. No. I think there are two things...two or three things that are very specific, and then there's something more general, that...about the newspaper industry as a whole. The very specific things have to do with the fact that since this newspaper was acquired by the Tribune Corporation, more than a hundred million dollars a year has come off the business side. And the departments that suffered, particularly hard, were circulation and promotion. Now because of the fluidity of the population here, because you know, people move a lot, people die, people, you know, change their minds about what they want to do. And so, you have to, here, in this market, you have to get a very large number of new subscribers all the time, to even stay even, let alone grow. And the cuts in the circulation and promotional departments hurt our abilities to do that a great deal. Now steps have been taken now to remedy that, and I think you'll see some growth.
HH: But Tim, is it delusional not to look at the fact that the center-right in California hates your newspaper? Considers it, I think objectively, to be over the left edge of bias on a day in and day out basis? That Kinsley runs a hard left editorial page? That John Carroll...
TR: Or did. I mean, isn't he leaving?
HH: Yeah, but the damage is done, and that John Carroll went after Arnold with a machete, and didn't do anything to Gray Davis, and that the Jews on the west side hate the anti-Israel bias that is almost daily on the front page. Don't these things build up barriers to subscription that, you know, you just can't knock down anymore, so that when you go hunting for those new subscribers, people won't even answer the phone if they can see that it's the Times person calling? Or if you get lucky and you get someone, and you get to make a pitch at them, they're more likely to scream at you than anything else.
TR: Well, if I agreed that all those things were true, then I would say yes. Those are all factors. But I...
HH: Are any of those things true?
TR: But I don't think all those things are true.
HH: Are any of them?
TR: I think...I think that...that...the lack of attention in recent years to local news, and in that I would include state and local politics.
This is a clear-cut dodge, and Hugh calls him on it. He calls him on it clearly and concisely by pointing out the discrepancies and bias in the reporting at the Times. But in typical Hugh fashion, he is not willing to let Mr. Rutten spin away from it.
HH: Now wait. But that's not one of the things I mentioned. I mentioned being anti-Israel, being anti-Arnold, being anti-right wing...
TR: No. I don't agree...first of all, I don't agree that the Times is anti-Israel, and I say that as somebody...and I can say this, because I'm a columnist. I happen to be somebody who is, uh, you know, a fervent and committed supporter of the state of Israel, and the notion of political zionism.
HH: All right. Is it anti-Arnold?
TR: And I don't agree that this paper is anti-Israel.
HH: Okay. Is it anti-Arnold?
TR: Um, no. I don't think it's anti-Arnold.
HH: Is it anti-center right political theory?
TR: ...in the news column.
HH: Is it anti-Republican?
TR: Anti-Republican? I would say on its editorial pages, it is...on the editorial pages, it probably is, uh, hostile to a great, uh, a great bit of Republican ideology.
FINALLY! We have our answer. He admits that the editorial writers are biased against the GOP. (BTW, that is not a surprise. What IS a surprise is he got Mr. Rutten to admit it.) And as a columnist and a self-appointed "conscious" one at that, his stance on Israel is commendable. Too bad more in the media do not share similar sentiments. Many papers across the nation—the LA Times, as well—have been virulently opposed to Israel, its moves to protect itself, and, at times, it’s existence.
HH: Tell me. Are there any pro-life people in there?
TR: Sure.
HH: How many?
TR: I don't know. I don't ask people things like that.
HH: It just doesn't ever come up?
TR: But look. I work at the L.A. Times, and I'm pro-life.
HH: But I'm just asking just as a percentage. By the way, being pro-life, does that mean you favor a reversal of Roe V. Wade?
TR: Do I favor a reversal of Roe V. Wade? No.
HH: Well, then you're not really pro-life. I mean, as the term is understood. It's kind of Orwellian.
TR: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. As you understand the term? Or as I understand the term?
HH: No, as the world understands. If we asked like a thousand people...
TR: No, I don't know that it translates into being against Roe V. Wade. And, you know, I think you can make an argument that Roe V. Wade was wrongly decided as a matter of law. I think as a matter of...I am opposed to abortion, but I think in a pluralistic society...
Pro-life, in my opinion, means that I stand against the idea of Roe’s existence. And that is a truth in my life. I do despise it. I hate it. Not just from a religious conviction, but from a legal standpoint, as well. We, at the Asylum, do feel the case was wrongly decided, and further that the government had no right usurping the right of the States to decide things themselves. Granted, the judiciary is a "separate, but equal" branch of the government, but abortion is not just confined to them. Congress has stepped in on the issue with a few pieces of legislation. Mr. Rutten is trying to spin his answer, and does an adequate job, but in the long run, it just does not pass the smell test.
TR: So, we should gear our coverage to people who have money?
HH: No. Your coverage should be fair.
TR: And it should be geared to make sure we keep readers?
HH: No. Your coverage should be fair, not go out of the way to offend the center right...
TR: Oh, okay.
HH: ...should not be condescending towards the conservative side of the aisle. It should at least have one...
This exchange was interesting as Mr. Rutten became quite defensive as Hugh was using that brilliant blogger brain, and using facts he had in connecting a series of dots. And he used it to make a point, not only to the Times, but to the MSM in general. It is time to return to the reporting of old where the media presented the FACTS to the populace, and let them decide. It is not to determine what is and is not a relevant fact, and present a slanted story.
This was no more evident than in Rathergate when Dan Rather—esteemed journalist of note for CBS—made the allegation that Pres. Bush ditched his National Guard service, and he presented a series of memos detailing it. Except that the memos were fakes. He refused to back down from the story, chalked it up to bad editors and fact-vetters, and to this day still sticks by his story that the story was based on facts rather than forgeries.
The inherent bias that Dan Rather has towards Republicans goes back to the Nixon days, and was carried up to the point where the elder Bush was president and slammed the door on him. Now, that animosity towards the GOP has focused to be against the Bush family. As Hugh calls it, this is "intuiting," and based on the facts, it is pretty solid.
I am positive I am boring our readers substantially with this post, but I wanted to take this on. Hugh issued a challenge to analyze this. The remainder of the article involves the issue of talk radio, and its supposed falling ratings. To that, if he wishes, I leave the rest to my esteemed colleague, Thomas, as he knows the radio industry far more than I do.
However, the point of this post is that here is a media guy in Mr. Rutten, and he is forced to admit that there is a level of bias at his paper, but refuses to admit how far the bias goes. This man is deluding himself if he thinks that the media in general—his paper, specifically—is not losing its audience due to the bias that is as obvious as the nose on Pinocchio’s face. Mr. Rutten has been institutionalized as a member of the media for far too long. It is time to take the blinders off, and make way for the new kid in town. We are quicker, more accurate, and more dangerous as our readership and participation grows.
The Bunny ;)
On Monday, the esteemed Hugh Hewitt had an interview with Tim Rutten, of the LA Times. I doubt I need not assure anyone that Hugh handed Tim his head—politely, of course. However, what was particularly interesting is that despite Mr. Rutten’s admission that he reads the big guns on the blogosphere, there is still an apparent distaste towards bloggers in general.
For prisoners incarcerated for so long and then are released into society, the term is "institutionalized;" virtually, living in a bubble so long they are unable to adapt to the changing world. Mr. Rutten displays this easily in several exchanges with Hugh. (Transcript excerpts courtesy of Hugh’s faithful and dependable servant, Generalissimo Duane.)
http://www.radioblogger.com/#000930
HH: No, they're not. And they're kind of snarling and vulgar and profane. It's more like a newsroom than a radio show.
TR: Well, you know, there's a lot of name-calling on the right, though.
HH: Where?
TR: I think...there's a not of...not on yours, actually.
HH: Or Powerline's.
TR: The word...you know, the word liar gets thrown around. There's a lot of conspiratorial thinking.
Conspiratorial thinking? I am wondering what "conspiracy" theories Mr. Rutten is referring to. Would it be the forged memos of CBS, or the killing of the John Kerry boast he was in Cambodia? Or is it the lingering doubt that Eason Jordan did not really accuse our troops of shooting and torturing journalists? Come on, Mr. Rutten. The bloggers nailed each of these stories fair and square whereas the MSM decided to skip over them. During Kerry’s entire presidential run, not a single member of the elites in the MSM handed this man a tough question, or they let him get away with the line, "Go to my website and see my plan." When serious bloggers toss around a dirty four-letter word like "liar," we usually have proof to back the claim up.
HH: I'm serious. I think we go about it one mind at a time, and the reason Air America cannot grow an audience is because they're not interested in persuading anyone. They're interested in pummeling perceived enemies, and you know...
TR: Well, I think this circles back to our topic, because I mean, I don't have...I don't know enough about Air America to have an opinion about it, and I have not followed this current scandal that some people see in their finances. I haven't looked at it.
HH: Why hasn't the Times looked at it, Tim?
TR: I don't know. I don't speak for the Times.
I will let him pass on his admission that he has not listened to Air America. I try each day to listen to what the other side is saying, but it would be much like trying to have a debate with a fiver year-old, so it is difficult. However, the finance question caught my attention when Mr. Rutten admitted to not knowing much about the burgeoning scandal. He states later in the exchange over this topic that he does read Michelle Malkin’s site. For those following this scandal, Brian Maloney and Michelle Malkin have formed the vanguard on this subject. If Mr. Rutten does not know about it then it is because he has chosen not to read up on it. Ms. Malkin and Mr. Maloney have but nothing if not thorough on the subject; so thorough that were I a DA investigating this, I would want them in my office with everything they have accumulated thus far.
HH: Now I know that you're busy...what does a senior writer do?
TR: Basically, I hold the hands of distraught colleagues.
HH: Well, there are a lot of them, given the layoffs at the Times.
TR: I'm here for younger writers to come and talk to about the stories they're doing, you know, and...
HH: So, you're the eminence in the back. The gray eminence.
TR: Yeah, or the kibitzer. I mean, I'm like...at this point, I'm like what Murray Kempton said about editorial writers. You know, he said they're the people who come down from the hill after the battle and shoot the wounded?
This was amusing, and I had to laugh at it. I picture people on the editorial staff doing that, yet Mr. Rutten disavows any connection to the editorial board. He writes an occasional book review, and a regular Saturday column called "Regarding Media," which has next-to-nothing to do with the media, in general. Yet, he portrays himself as someone outside the editorial staff doing the jobs of editors. Curious that? Is that not a bit of contradiction?
HH: So why...is it just the worst run newspaper in America of a major?
TR: No. No. I think there are two things...two or three things that are very specific, and then there's something more general, that...about the newspaper industry as a whole. The very specific things have to do with the fact that since this newspaper was acquired by the Tribune Corporation, more than a hundred million dollars a year has come off the business side. And the departments that suffered, particularly hard, were circulation and promotion. Now because of the fluidity of the population here, because you know, people move a lot, people die, people, you know, change their minds about what they want to do. And so, you have to, here, in this market, you have to get a very large number of new subscribers all the time, to even stay even, let alone grow. And the cuts in the circulation and promotional departments hurt our abilities to do that a great deal. Now steps have been taken now to remedy that, and I think you'll see some growth.
HH: But Tim, is it delusional not to look at the fact that the center-right in California hates your newspaper? Considers it, I think objectively, to be over the left edge of bias on a day in and day out basis? That Kinsley runs a hard left editorial page? That John Carroll...
TR: Or did. I mean, isn't he leaving?
HH: Yeah, but the damage is done, and that John Carroll went after Arnold with a machete, and didn't do anything to Gray Davis, and that the Jews on the west side hate the anti-Israel bias that is almost daily on the front page. Don't these things build up barriers to subscription that, you know, you just can't knock down anymore, so that when you go hunting for those new subscribers, people won't even answer the phone if they can see that it's the Times person calling? Or if you get lucky and you get someone, and you get to make a pitch at them, they're more likely to scream at you than anything else.
TR: Well, if I agreed that all those things were true, then I would say yes. Those are all factors. But I...
HH: Are any of those things true?
TR: But I don't think all those things are true.
HH: Are any of them?
TR: I think...I think that...that...the lack of attention in recent years to local news, and in that I would include state and local politics.
This is a clear-cut dodge, and Hugh calls him on it. He calls him on it clearly and concisely by pointing out the discrepancies and bias in the reporting at the Times. But in typical Hugh fashion, he is not willing to let Mr. Rutten spin away from it.
HH: Now wait. But that's not one of the things I mentioned. I mentioned being anti-Israel, being anti-Arnold, being anti-right wing...
TR: No. I don't agree...first of all, I don't agree that the Times is anti-Israel, and I say that as somebody...and I can say this, because I'm a columnist. I happen to be somebody who is, uh, you know, a fervent and committed supporter of the state of Israel, and the notion of political zionism.
HH: All right. Is it anti-Arnold?
TR: And I don't agree that this paper is anti-Israel.
HH: Okay. Is it anti-Arnold?
TR: Um, no. I don't think it's anti-Arnold.
HH: Is it anti-center right political theory?
TR: ...in the news column.
HH: Is it anti-Republican?
TR: Anti-Republican? I would say on its editorial pages, it is...on the editorial pages, it probably is, uh, hostile to a great, uh, a great bit of Republican ideology.
FINALLY! We have our answer. He admits that the editorial writers are biased against the GOP. (BTW, that is not a surprise. What IS a surprise is he got Mr. Rutten to admit it.) And as a columnist and a self-appointed "conscious" one at that, his stance on Israel is commendable. Too bad more in the media do not share similar sentiments. Many papers across the nation—the LA Times, as well—have been virulently opposed to Israel, its moves to protect itself, and, at times, it’s existence.
HH: Tell me. Are there any pro-life people in there?
TR: Sure.
HH: How many?
TR: I don't know. I don't ask people things like that.
HH: It just doesn't ever come up?
TR: But look. I work at the L.A. Times, and I'm pro-life.
HH: But I'm just asking just as a percentage. By the way, being pro-life, does that mean you favor a reversal of Roe V. Wade?
TR: Do I favor a reversal of Roe V. Wade? No.
HH: Well, then you're not really pro-life. I mean, as the term is understood. It's kind of Orwellian.
TR: Now, wait a minute. Wait a minute. As you understand the term? Or as I understand the term?
HH: No, as the world understands. If we asked like a thousand people...
TR: No, I don't know that it translates into being against Roe V. Wade. And, you know, I think you can make an argument that Roe V. Wade was wrongly decided as a matter of law. I think as a matter of...I am opposed to abortion, but I think in a pluralistic society...
Pro-life, in my opinion, means that I stand against the idea of Roe’s existence. And that is a truth in my life. I do despise it. I hate it. Not just from a religious conviction, but from a legal standpoint, as well. We, at the Asylum, do feel the case was wrongly decided, and further that the government had no right usurping the right of the States to decide things themselves. Granted, the judiciary is a "separate, but equal" branch of the government, but abortion is not just confined to them. Congress has stepped in on the issue with a few pieces of legislation. Mr. Rutten is trying to spin his answer, and does an adequate job, but in the long run, it just does not pass the smell test.
TR: So, we should gear our coverage to people who have money?
HH: No. Your coverage should be fair.
TR: And it should be geared to make sure we keep readers?
HH: No. Your coverage should be fair, not go out of the way to offend the center right...
TR: Oh, okay.
HH: ...should not be condescending towards the conservative side of the aisle. It should at least have one...
This exchange was interesting as Mr. Rutten became quite defensive as Hugh was using that brilliant blogger brain, and using facts he had in connecting a series of dots. And he used it to make a point, not only to the Times, but to the MSM in general. It is time to return to the reporting of old where the media presented the FACTS to the populace, and let them decide. It is not to determine what is and is not a relevant fact, and present a slanted story.
This was no more evident than in Rathergate when Dan Rather—esteemed journalist of note for CBS—made the allegation that Pres. Bush ditched his National Guard service, and he presented a series of memos detailing it. Except that the memos were fakes. He refused to back down from the story, chalked it up to bad editors and fact-vetters, and to this day still sticks by his story that the story was based on facts rather than forgeries.
The inherent bias that Dan Rather has towards Republicans goes back to the Nixon days, and was carried up to the point where the elder Bush was president and slammed the door on him. Now, that animosity towards the GOP has focused to be against the Bush family. As Hugh calls it, this is "intuiting," and based on the facts, it is pretty solid.
I am positive I am boring our readers substantially with this post, but I wanted to take this on. Hugh issued a challenge to analyze this. The remainder of the article involves the issue of talk radio, and its supposed falling ratings. To that, if he wishes, I leave the rest to my esteemed colleague, Thomas, as he knows the radio industry far more than I do.
However, the point of this post is that here is a media guy in Mr. Rutten, and he is forced to admit that there is a level of bias at his paper, but refuses to admit how far the bias goes. This man is deluding himself if he thinks that the media in general—his paper, specifically—is not losing its audience due to the bias that is as obvious as the nose on Pinocchio’s face. Mr. Rutten has been institutionalized as a member of the media for far too long. It is time to take the blinders off, and make way for the new kid in town. We are quicker, more accurate, and more dangerous as our readership and participation grows.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 6:53 PM
4 Comments:
Bush Cancels Vacation to Focus on Relief
Meanwhile, the White House revealed that Bush was returning to Washington Wednesday from his Texas ranch.
Dish Network High Point NC - Feel the need to accessorize your Dishnetwork? We have spare Dishnetwork remote controls and other Dishnetworth items that can be useful for your Dishnetwork. Check out my site, it's all about Dish Network High Point NC
A fantastic blog. Keep it up. I'm sure you'd be interested in sheol in respect to info on sheol
Hamster-powered phone charger
A 16-year-old boy invented a hamster-powered mobile phone charger as part of his GCSE science project.
I definitely like your site, bookmarked!
I've got a penile enlargement pumps related site. It covers penile enlargement pumps related articles.
Drop by when you can.
Your blog is creative Keep up the great work. Don't miss visiting this site about how to buy & sell soccer shoes on interest free credit.
Post a Comment
<< Home