Bongo Drums For The Media: Get Over It Already
OK, this is ridiculous. Yesterday, Hugh Hewitt had Larry O'Donnell and Helen Thomas on his show. Neither were very cordial, and Larry sounded like he was itching for a fight from the word go. The transcirpts are here and here, respectively.
Now, Hugh brings this to our attention:
The Cheney shooting and the Katrina response have raised tough questions about what the president knows, when he knows it and how the White House shares information with elected officials and the public.
The hunting imbroglio has sparked a related question about Bush's management style: whether he has provided the vice president too much autonomy in an administration in which Cheney has wielded as much influence as any second in command....
Some senior Republicans, including top officials from previous GOP administrations, privately said they shared Panetta's views.
One GOP fundraiser close to the White House said he thought the administration's response to the news that Cheney had mistakenly shot a fellow hunter Saturday so closely replicated the Katrina experience that he wondered, "Is this a bad dream we are seeing again?"
"There is a pattern here," said the fundraiser, who requested anonymity when discussing the administration's workings.
Well, I'm sorry, but Hugh beat on Larry yesterday over his mystery lawyers, and so did I. I'm tired of this Mickey Mouse garbage from the press. Why is it that the Archaic Media hides behind their "sources," yet the New Media is naming names, and backing up their facts. And like the assumptions yesterday that Larry was lying about the lawyers he spoke with--not only because of his refusal to name them or present them, but also because he contradicted the number of them that he spoke with--people assume that these aren't "sources" cited by the MSM. Who is the LA Times referring to the "autonomy" he's granted Vice President Cheney? The only names mentioned in the whole piece are:
--Donald Kettl, an expert on government administration at the University of Pennsylvania.
--Leon Panetta, a White House chief of staff under President Clinton.
--Andy Kohut, executive director of the Pew Research Center.
--Ron Klain, a former Clinton administration aide.
One person, Stephen Hadley, is cited in the story, but his quote comes from last November, not recently as the others are. So, they have no Republican named in the piece, but they're alluded to. Again, without names, I don't buy their story. I look at their piece entitled Critics See A White House Failure To Communicate as a hit piece.
Hit pieces seem to be the order of the day, every day, in the papers. If a snide swipe can be taken, journalists and columnists will take them. And it doesn't matter the context of the piece. It could be reviewing a restaurant, and somewhere that critic will find a way to make a comment about the administration, or politics in general. I'm not kidding. I've seen them in movie reviews. The MSM is fighting, tooth and nail, for relevance, and they keep failing at it. What is really pathetic about this is that the MSM professes innocence in their reporting.
Helen Thomas yesterday kept repeating this same mantra late in the interview with Hugh Hewitt before she hung up:
I...I worked for United Press International for more than fifty years, and I wrote straight copy. I was never, never accused of bias.
Yeah, right. Like Dan Rather ran straight copy, and Walter Cronkite? Like Eugene Robinson or Barbara Demick? The MSM doesn't understand the concept of "straight copy" and it's because they do have a bias. They have a bias, but can't see the forest through the trees because so many people in their industry share that bias. If all your friends believe exactly the way you do, you look at the world as nuts when something confronts you that's contrary to your worldview.
And that's why the MSM s fighting against the tides deluging them right now. The MSM has more outlets than I can name in one post. We know the same, tired old news organizations like the backs of our hands. The New York Times, The LA Times, The Boston Globe, The Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, The Arizona Republic, etc., etc., ad naseum. And don't forget the TV networks--both regular and cable. This is what the New Media opted to take on, head-on, and we're creaming them in the relam of reporting and ideas.
28 million blogs are currently tracked by Technorati; thousands are tracked by NZ Bear at Truth Laid Bear. Millions of citizen journalists take to the Internet everyday, and we report on what we find. Not every blog deals with the news, but those that do get the story right, and right "straight copy." Are some of us "biased" based on our ideology? Of course, but we don't taint our copy with it. Look at any of the biggies on the blogosphere: Hugh Hewitt, Michelle Malkin, Captain's Quarters, Glenn Reynolds, and Little Green Footballs. These people know how to handle news, and how to report it. (As a matter of fact, I'd trust Charles over at LGF before I trust any internation MSM copy desk. He's tops when it comes to dealing with international issues.)
Point being is that we're the upstarts. We're the red-headed stepchild in the back that no one wants to recognize. If the media believed the polls they so often reported, they'd see that people don't trust them as much as they used to, and they're turning to blogs. We are the future. Dinosaurs like Helen Thomas, Larry O'Donnell, and their willing cronies in the media just haven't figured it out yet.
They didn't see the meteor storm that's killing off their kind, and they still don't buy the odd meteor (like Hugh Hewitt) that hits them.
Publius II
OK, this is ridiculous. Yesterday, Hugh Hewitt had Larry O'Donnell and Helen Thomas on his show. Neither were very cordial, and Larry sounded like he was itching for a fight from the word go. The transcirpts are here and here, respectively.
Now, Hugh brings this to our attention:
The Cheney shooting and the Katrina response have raised tough questions about what the president knows, when he knows it and how the White House shares information with elected officials and the public.
The hunting imbroglio has sparked a related question about Bush's management style: whether he has provided the vice president too much autonomy in an administration in which Cheney has wielded as much influence as any second in command....
Some senior Republicans, including top officials from previous GOP administrations, privately said they shared Panetta's views.
One GOP fundraiser close to the White House said he thought the administration's response to the news that Cheney had mistakenly shot a fellow hunter Saturday so closely replicated the Katrina experience that he wondered, "Is this a bad dream we are seeing again?"
"There is a pattern here," said the fundraiser, who requested anonymity when discussing the administration's workings.
Well, I'm sorry, but Hugh beat on Larry yesterday over his mystery lawyers, and so did I. I'm tired of this Mickey Mouse garbage from the press. Why is it that the Archaic Media hides behind their "sources," yet the New Media is naming names, and backing up their facts. And like the assumptions yesterday that Larry was lying about the lawyers he spoke with--not only because of his refusal to name them or present them, but also because he contradicted the number of them that he spoke with--people assume that these aren't "sources" cited by the MSM. Who is the LA Times referring to the "autonomy" he's granted Vice President Cheney? The only names mentioned in the whole piece are:
--Donald Kettl, an expert on government administration at the University of Pennsylvania.
--Leon Panetta, a White House chief of staff under President Clinton.
--Andy Kohut, executive director of the Pew Research Center.
--Ron Klain, a former Clinton administration aide.
One person, Stephen Hadley, is cited in the story, but his quote comes from last November, not recently as the others are. So, they have no Republican named in the piece, but they're alluded to. Again, without names, I don't buy their story. I look at their piece entitled Critics See A White House Failure To Communicate as a hit piece.
Hit pieces seem to be the order of the day, every day, in the papers. If a snide swipe can be taken, journalists and columnists will take them. And it doesn't matter the context of the piece. It could be reviewing a restaurant, and somewhere that critic will find a way to make a comment about the administration, or politics in general. I'm not kidding. I've seen them in movie reviews. The MSM is fighting, tooth and nail, for relevance, and they keep failing at it. What is really pathetic about this is that the MSM professes innocence in their reporting.
Helen Thomas yesterday kept repeating this same mantra late in the interview with Hugh Hewitt before she hung up:
I...I worked for United Press International for more than fifty years, and I wrote straight copy. I was never, never accused of bias.
Yeah, right. Like Dan Rather ran straight copy, and Walter Cronkite? Like Eugene Robinson or Barbara Demick? The MSM doesn't understand the concept of "straight copy" and it's because they do have a bias. They have a bias, but can't see the forest through the trees because so many people in their industry share that bias. If all your friends believe exactly the way you do, you look at the world as nuts when something confronts you that's contrary to your worldview.
And that's why the MSM s fighting against the tides deluging them right now. The MSM has more outlets than I can name in one post. We know the same, tired old news organizations like the backs of our hands. The New York Times, The LA Times, The Boston Globe, The Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post, The Atlanta Journal Constitution, The Arizona Republic, etc., etc., ad naseum. And don't forget the TV networks--both regular and cable. This is what the New Media opted to take on, head-on, and we're creaming them in the relam of reporting and ideas.
28 million blogs are currently tracked by Technorati; thousands are tracked by NZ Bear at Truth Laid Bear. Millions of citizen journalists take to the Internet everyday, and we report on what we find. Not every blog deals with the news, but those that do get the story right, and right "straight copy." Are some of us "biased" based on our ideology? Of course, but we don't taint our copy with it. Look at any of the biggies on the blogosphere: Hugh Hewitt, Michelle Malkin, Captain's Quarters, Glenn Reynolds, and Little Green Footballs. These people know how to handle news, and how to report it. (As a matter of fact, I'd trust Charles over at LGF before I trust any internation MSM copy desk. He's tops when it comes to dealing with international issues.)
Point being is that we're the upstarts. We're the red-headed stepchild in the back that no one wants to recognize. If the media believed the polls they so often reported, they'd see that people don't trust them as much as they used to, and they're turning to blogs. We are the future. Dinosaurs like Helen Thomas, Larry O'Donnell, and their willing cronies in the media just haven't figured it out yet.
They didn't see the meteor storm that's killing off their kind, and they still don't buy the odd meteor (like Hugh Hewitt) that hits them.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 4:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home