First, this, from AP TV writer David Bauder:
Much like a youthful Dan Rather made a name for himself with stellar coverage of a Gulf Coast hurricane two generations ago, Fox News Channel’s Shepard Smith opened some eyes with his work in the face of a powerful and blustery force.
And we’re not just talking about Hurricane Hannity.
Smith’s passionate reportage from a New Orleans highway overpass clogged with the sick and dying won critical praise, helped renew interest in his nightly newscast and earned him his first visit to David Letterman’s couch. Letterman’s people called even before Smith’s memorable exchange with talk show host Sean Hannity.
Fox’s chief anchor will increase his profile even more with a nightly radio newscast that begins airing Monday on more than 260 Fox affiliates.
“What he did down in New Orleans was really an extraordinary accomplishment, which goes way beyond what we would expect a news anchor to do,” said Paul Levinson, chairman of Fordham University’s communications and media studies department. “He not only reported what was going on, he did not allow other people to minimize or mischaracterize what was happening.”
There is so much wrong here that I scarcely know where to begin—from a TV writer critiquing news coverage like he would the current season of “The West Wing,” to the communications professor celebrating a reporter’s reluctance to be challenged after the fact with evidence that flew in the face of his initial reportage.
What is so striking about this piece, it seems to me, is that, implicit in praise of Shepard Smith is the larger nod Bauer gives to the successful transformation of news gathering and reportage to emoting and storytelling, wherein rigorous adherence to fact and context have been replaced with “passion” and conflict and resolution—the complete victory of Freitag’s triangle over the incidental nature of narrative as it exists outside of the desire to “frame” a “story” toward a particular resolution.
As FOXNews’ Major Garrett did the far less glamorous work of learning about FEMA and identifying bottlenecks in the relief effort by reviewing the local and state disaster plans in an effort to understand how states are set to integrate with the federal support efforts, Smith received “critical praise” (including praise from some conservatives over at the Corner) and “his first visit to Letterman’s couch” for standing on an overpass and wringing his hands, showcasing his concern as his preened before the camera, tossing out implied blame and misinformation with each new utterance, and doing so in a way that really drove the story: 10,000 dead; rapes and murders widespread; people starving and dying of thirst; the federal government nowhere in sight…
In short, Bauder’s piece, rather than condemning Smith (and here he could include Anderson Cooper) for sensationalizing a story and making the news instead of reporting it (FEMA director Michael Brown was forced out; the federal government, trying desperately to recover from an implied lack of concern and leadership, has committed what will become trillians of dollars to rebuilding New Orleans), instead celebrates the sensationalism, and does so precisely because it made news and drove social change by seizing control of the narrative.
It is the victory of infotainment over journalism—and of the press celebrating one of its own for pulling it off, and for pulling it off in a way that damaged an Administration that the press abhors. And best of all? It was a pro-Administration FOXNews reporter who showed his “courage” by breaking from the Bushie pack—that courage to break from the pack evidently ore laudable, by today’s journalistic standards, than accuracy or critical circumspection.
In short, the narrative that the media decided upon shortly after the hurricane hit and the levees breached—that Katrina was a disaster of epic proportions that was made worse by an uncaring and slow-acting federal government—was going to be their truth. And so anything that fit that either fit that truth or could be spun to support it was going to be celebrated; and anything that contradicted that truth would be minimized or ignored. Hyperbole was justified insofar as it drove home how dire the media insisted the situation was; sensationalism and a lax attitude toward checking facts in advance of “reporting” them were justified insofar as they jibed with the larger “truths” the media had decided up. Fake but accurate. A young Dan Rather indeed…
And now, weeks later, the post mortem is revealing cracks in those initial truths: the levees didn’t crumble as a result of federal budget cuts; the Red Cross and Salvation Army were ready with relief supplies even as Shepard Smith screamed about federal negligence; the USS Bataan was flying rescue missions immediately after Katrina hit, not waiting for word from a guitar-strumming President; plenty of Guard troops were available and waiting for the Governor to request assistance, the Iraq War having virtually no bearing whatever on their ability to provide help in Katrina’s aftermath.
And just yesterday, Tim Russert walked back the original Aaron Broussard story (video here) that suggested federal malfeasance led to the death of nursing home patients who died waiting for help to arrive by challenging Broussard on the facts (first thrown into question here)—much to the chagrin of many on the left side of the blogosphere.
To review that original Russert interview:
Mr. Broussard: It’s not just Katrina that caused all these deaths in New Orleans here. Bureaucracy has committed murder here in the greater New Orleans area and bureaucracy has to stand trial before Congress now. It’s so obvious.
Mr. Russert: Hold on. Hold on, sir. Shouldn’t the mayor of New Orleans and the governor of New Orleans bear some responsibility? Couldn’t they have been much more forceful, much more effective and much more organized in evacuating the area?
Mr. Broussard: Sir, they were told, like me, every single day, “The cavalry is coming.†On the federal level, “The cavalry is coming. The cavalry’s coming. The cavalry’s coming.†The guy who runs this building I’m in, emergency management, he’s responsible for everything. His mother was trapped in St. Bernard Nursing Home and every day she called him and said, “Are you coming, son? Is somebody coming?†And he said, “Yeah, Mama. Somebody’s coming to get you. Somebody’s coming to get you on Tuesday.†“Somebody’s coming to get you on Wednesday.†“Somebody’s coming to get you on Thursday.†“Somebody’s coming to get you on Friday.†And she drowned Friday night. She drowned Friday night.
Mr. Russert: Mr. President…
Mr. Broussard: Nobody’s coming to get us. Nobody’s coming to get us. The secretary has promised. Everybody’s promised. They’ve had press conferences. I’m sick of the press conferences. For God sakes, shut up and send us somebody.
As John Cole notes:
[Broussard’s story] was a scathing indictment of the federal government’s response, to claim that this woman was drowned because of a 5 day federal delay. And every aspect of the story is now confirmed to be inaccurate, except for the ultimate death of the woman. The owners of the nursing home have been charged. The feds, if you are to believe Broussard’s original version, abandoned this woman before the hurricane even happened. How about that for blowing the response?
In short, this story, this part of the record, this evidence—it has nothing to do with [as David Weinberger claims it does] “an attempt to discredit the story’s teller in order to deny the story’s meaning,†but rather it had everything to do with getting things right.
We are about to completely remake the way the federal government plans for, responds to, and handles emergency management. There WILL be a push to militarize the entire federal response. There will be a push to replace state and local authorities with federal authorities. There will be a significant power grab by the feds, who don’t turn down opportunities to expand their own power and who don’t like being blamed for things beyond their control. And not all of this is going to be a good thing.
Indeed, to go one step further, most of the changes that will be proposed will be unnecessary — and they will be the direct result of lawmakers trying to look they are doing something to repair a “problem” that was only “broken” insofar as it relied upon local competence in the early stages of the plan, and did not foresee a scenario in which a Governor would maintain sovereignty and yet refuse to do the things necessary to expedite relief to her state.
But to hear some on the left tell it, the real villain here is Russert—who is to be excoriated for undermining the media truth that had long ago been settled upon: that the feds were slow to react, they were incompetent, and Bush’s cavalier attitude and mismanagement of the situation led indirectly to the devastation in New Orleans. Writes Jeff Jarvis, in his indictment of Russert:
Too much of journalism is turning this way today: If we nitpick the facts and follow some rules some committee wrote up, we’ll be safe; we’re doing our jobs. No, sir, our job is to get more than the facts. Anybody can get facts. Facts are the commodity. The truth is harder to find. Justice is harder to fight for. Lessons are what we’re after.
[My emphasis]
And here’s Joe Gandelman, concurring with Jarvis:
He COULD have gone after correction of the facts as Jarvis says  “quickly and clear.†But he seemed to want to not just fix the facts but discredit the source and lose sight of the big picture story.
In providing infotainment  by going after and decimating his onetime star guest, by showing pit-bull persistence on the inaccuracies of and producing a good, confrontational, “hot talk†TV segment  he succeeded.
[My emphasis].
Note what is happening here: both Jarvis and Gandelman seem to believe that it is the job of journalists not only to report the facts (which are just a “commodity” that “anybody can get”), but instead, to tell us what those facts mean—not in the sense of contexutalizing them, but rather as a way to complete the lesson for us rather than allowing us to do our own interpretative work and reach our own conclusions. For Jarvis, this is the very procedure that separates journalists from the rest of the pack; and to Gandelman and Weinberger, facts are just minor details in support of the “bigger picture”—one over which the media is justified in asserting control.
And so is it really a surprise that the journalists who we celebrate today are those whose reporting tells a “big picture story” and reaches for “truth” and “justice” and “lessons”—with the best being those who are able to do so on the fly so that, in effect, they are inventing the story, corroborating it, and ossifying it even as they tell it?
Hardly. And Shepard Smith did just that. Thanks to his reporting, we believed the absolute worst about the federal response. We believed the city had descended into anarchy—with crime and suffering the rule. Thanks to his reporting, we had no context in which to place the extent of the damage (the area affected being the size of Utah or Great Britain; the destruction of the infrastructure and roadways creating logistical nightmares for rescuers, who overcome incredible obstacles to get into the city, etc.)—and so the whole world was reduced to the microcosm of his camera’s reach and his own description of events. The result, of course, was uninformed outrage, which led, predictably, to the circling of the party wagons, the desire to place blame, etc.—all because today’s media was so intent on telling us a “story” and looking for lessons and larger truths that they crafted a narrative in advance of all those pesky facts that have since come out, and which continue to come out.
Personally, I don’t want to live in Jarvis’ or Gandelman’s media world.
Just give us the facts, I say. Give us the context. Those who control the narrative control the power. And the thought of Shepard Smith or Geraldo Rivera or Dan Rather driving public policy on a regular basis is simply to horrible to consider.
Just the facts, reporters. It ain’t glamorous, I realize, but it’s the job. You are reporters. You are not secular demigods responsible for Truth, and you are not dramaturgists whos job it is to create engaging narratives so that the lessons you wish to see imparted are made more compelling.
If we want drama, we’ll turn on “CSI”.
****
(h/t Jer Olson) More, for CQ.
****
update: Richard Bennett provides a different spin.
****
update 2: More here.
SHEPARDPHOBE!!!!
IF you haven’t seen this Times-Picayune article yet, you might be interested in the adjusted atrocity and body count.
Maybe a strained comparison here, but the Spanish American War has been laid at the feet of media sensationalism as well. Ah, the good ol’ days of media once again influencing public opinion and political action.
Were you there, risking your life like Shep was?
CHICKENREPORTER!!!!!
preach it, brother
Not to mention, all of the hype and hysteria caused Rod Dreher and others to hyperventilate and soil themselves repeatedly in open, public view in places like NRO’s “The Corner” and other conservative media outlets.
I don’t know how Dreher can show his face in respectable conservative gathering spaces anymore.
You know, prior to Katrina, I liked Shepard Smith. Now, I can’t stand the sight of his smug, self-important mug.
For shame, Mr. Goldstein,
Didn’t you read the quote in Jarvis’s post from the eloquent humanist Brian Oberkirch?
Thus has this little “blog” of yours been rendered irrelevant. Well, I guess Jarvis’s has as well, but, you know, it’s all good.
I didn’t see any of the coverage on FOX; I really can’t watch anything but football and baseball anymore, and that’s becoming a stretch. But isn’t this kind of coverage ultimately driven only by ratings, and hence ad dollars? Perhaps I am simply too cynical (or too simple).
It appears that “The Moderate Voice” is noting but a lefty site pretending to be something that it is not.
Another Moby wannabe.
PEABODY AWARDS FOR EVERYONE!!!
I see you’ve linked the Seattle Times version of the Picayune piece, so nevermind.
I don’t get it when people retort about Broussards fibination “We’ll, she DIED didn’t she?” It wasn’t the dying that was the shocking part. The death is tragic and that alone is affecting, but deaths by drowing do sometimes occur from storm surge in low lying areas. A tragic loss of life from a powerful weather system wasn’t Broussards point and it wasn’t the emotional hook of the story.
What was shocking was his emotional recount of a horrible, outrageously unecessary death by drowning after four days of repeatedly calling her son and begging for a promised rescue… rescue that came only hours too late because the Feds didn’t show as promised.
His point was that the feds were getting in the way and letting people die. “Nobody’s coming to get us! Send us sombody!” was his plea.
Pardon me for stating the obvious. I’m still ticked at the guy.
Hardly surprising.
Jarvis and Gandelman are journalists (and Jarvis is now journalism school faculty, for crying out loud). What else are they going to say?
Media HR departments must have a way to test for self-importance and ego before they hire people like this.
Wow, it doesn
Wow, it doesn?t take long for you dingers to purge one of your own for not repeating the Rovien message machine. Now even Faux is too “liburell?â€Â
I read some of the comments over at Crooks and Liars. Boy, talking about purging one’s own – you’d think Russert was the coming of the anti-Christ.
So, Cain, what’s your opinion on Russert’s second interview? You may want to adjust your irony meter before you answer.
tw: believe, as in can you believe the gall?
TV (Harry)
I tink somebodies head gonna asplode soon…
Remember Cain, the shiny side of the aluminum goes on the outside of the hat, else the mind rays are actually amplified.
The MSM’s performance was ridiculous. It was apparent to anyone with eyes that they were either lying through their teeth, or simply making crap up to sex up the story.
Anyone with half a brain knows that in the first few hours and sometimes days of a major cataclysm, it’s hard to get good intel on anything, let alone under the conditions of a major hurricane. Most cell phones weren’t even working for God’s sake. Yet along come Shep and friends spoon feeding us drivel as if it were gospel. And who says the camera never lies. The camera often lies, especially when a self promoting ignorant hack is calling the shots.
Screw them all.
Tour de force, Jeff.
I cannot believe that people are going after Russert on this. It’s absolutely astounding. I thought things were bad, but it turns out it’s way worse thann I ‘d ever imagined.
Tuesday:
“Billy? I’m scared! Are you coming?”
“Yeah Mama, somebody’s coming.”
“Can’t you come and get me after work?”
“Oh Mama, you know tonight is Texas Hold’em night.”
Wednesday:
“Billy? Can you come and get me tonight?”
“Mama! Somebody’s coming. The cavalry is coming and you know CSI Miami is on tonight.”
Thursday:
“Billy?”
“Bowling.”
Friday:
“Mama?………MAMA!!!!”
Wow, it doesn?t take long for you dingers to purge one of your own for not repeating the Rovien message machine. Now even Faux is too “liburell?â€Â
It’s called standing on principle rather than standing with a faction, Ace.
From SarahW’s link to the Times-Picayhune:
This article backs up what has already been reported here- the Katrina coverage was sensationalized and grossly inaccurate. Narratives were constructed around this distortion that are now being used to form public opinion and shape government policy.
Rejoice! It’s the al-Jazeera-ing of news!
Face it, it’s 1984. While we were guarding the front door, Big Brother and the Ministry of Truth were coming in the back.
John over at Powerline is on the same wave length, sort of. He’s asking the media to take responsibility for the “hyped” reporting and did it (the reporting) hinder the relief effort. Interesting two points:
One: Did the reporting of the lawlessness at the Civic Center delay the response by the NG? If you <a href=”http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2005/tr20050903-3850.html” target=”_blank”>remember</a>, they waaited to build up a “sufficient force” to go in there.
Two: Powerline buys into the meme that “there is enough blame to go around”.
[Emphasis mine]
It just seems that no one, on either side, can say, “Show me what the Feds did wrong.” It seems almost like you must cede that FEMA fucked up before you have any credibility to question the lack of local and state response or the hysteria and hype of the media.
Brilliant work, Jeff. And work that should be seen by every news consumer oops, sorry, “truth reciever” in the country. There really is no hope for journalism, none at all. Whether it claasifies itself as left, right or center, it is simply an exploitation business. Sort of like the porn industry, except without the quality.
How long before the moonbats suggest nominating Shep for the Supreme Court?
Auf Englisch, bitte, Cain?
ris,
Spot on. I’m perfectly willing to conclude that FEMA bothched the job, but that case hasn’t yet been made. Worse yet, given the evident corruption of the media, and rampant ass covering throughout the government, I’m not sure we’ll ever get answers to the President’s simple questions: “What went right and what went wrong?”
Does anyone else see the irony of ‘defending’ the federal response to this disaster as our only defense of keeping that same entity from becoming an even more overwhelming power sans our elected local and state officials?
Jeff Jarvis:
“Anybody can get facts. Facts are the commodity. The truth is harder to find. Justice is harder to fight for. Lessons are what we’re after.”
I believe I understand what he’s driving at, but to state it in that way is incredibly creepy and Big Brotherish. If facts are dime-a-dozen and “lessons are what we’re after,” then which lessons achieve primacy?
Fact: 1,900 American servicemen killed in Iraq so far. The lesson: America out of Iraq? Light casualties when compared with other conflicts? More armor needed? More troops? Less? Things are going quite well for setting up a nascent democracy in a former dictatorship? Which LESSON does that fact support and who gets to decide? Jeff Jarvis? Shep Smith? Markos Moulitsas?
I’m with you, Jeff. Gimme the facts and let me make up my own mind. Don’t feed me what you think are the ‘lessons’ you feel I need to take away. I’m a grown up and can assemble the facts into a story that makes sense to me, thanks.
Jeff, two things:
First, the best comment on the aftermath of NO:
BUSH HATERS LIED
PEOPLE UN-DIED
Second, I was a newspaper editor several years ago, and I fought this infotainment battle with the AP at that time. I would proof the AP wire stories and take out all references that I knew to be irrelavent. Well, I’m not a newspaper editor now, so you know I didn’t win.
See, this is why I think all schools of “journalism” should be abolished. You want to find out things and tell others about what happened? Then become a reporter: report what happened.
A “journalist”, on the other hand, seems bound and determined to tell people the story of what happened, as if the events of people’s lives are just designed to be fodder for their craft. A journal is something one keeps privately; people with that mindset who commit “journalism” can’t quite get over the notion that everything is about them.
If these people want to tell stories, let ‘em become fiction writers. Heaven knows half of ‘em are anyway.
In general the media sucks for accuracy today, but this is like the chicken and the egg story.
If we (collectively) didn’t watch, they wouldn’t have ratings, wouldn’t have ad revenue, and would change, or die. Perhaps an over simplification, but these guys live and die by the ratings point. We do have some ownership, though this does not excuse the lack of integrity on the media’s part.
Where is Brian Lamb and CSPAN when we need them?
I would prefer the Sgt. Joe Friday approach. Just the facts please.
The guy who runs this building I’m in, emergency management, he’s responsible for everything. His mother was trapped in St. Bernard Nursing Home…
The guy right there on the scene, “responsible for everything,” couldn’t save his own mom a few miles away, yet George Bush and FEMA were supposed to? It’s to Rodrigue’s credit that he, unlike Broussard, told the truth and didn’t try to cover his ass with dishonorable behavior. I do feel for poor Rodrigue.
Once honor and integrity are lost, everything else follows. For lo! these many Moons, our mass-media (print and TV) have performed without a grain of respect for truth (in the sense of verifiable fact) or for their increasingly dumbed-down audience (one stupidity feeds on another).
For sheer rancid sensationalizing, it would be hard to beat these New Orleans stories– and how the BBC and Manchester Guardian licked their socialist chops at every little detail. The world was not always like this… occasionally a dose or two of reality leaked through. Whatever the cause of these consistently vile mis-statements, it does seem there’s a serious disconnect between ANY news-worthy event and how it is “reported”. The good news is, anyone with a spark of curiousity and intelligence can run rings around garden-variety “journalism” any day, and in fact profit handsomely by doing so.
For example: It’s fun to hear media types, and their sloborific sycophants, talk down the American economy. (Remember Kerry’s “We’re in a Great Depression!” last October?) There’s so much opportunity right now that, where I live, dozens of perfectly adequate 1950s ranch-style homes are being torn down to put up (rather grotesque) Mac Mansions on tiny plots in true Torstein Veblen vein: “I’ve got money and you don’t!” Drives the entitlement-mongers nuts, but what’s to choose? All that trendy-lefty hate-and-rage means is, they’re playing Veblen’s game.
To hell with the so-called media. Anyone scanning the NYT or clicking on virtually any coprophagous
pair of Talking Heads deserves exactly what they get. Reality to Media: Drop Dead!
I agree whole-heartedly with Old Dad above; I too would like to know about FEMA screwups so that they can be fixed in the future.
Were there really sexual harrasment training sessions held in Atlanta that delayed responders to the disaster area? If so, then that appears to be something very poorly executed.
But if there weren’t resources to deploy these emergency personnel, or if safety was an issue (because the media was overhyping the firepower of the looters perhaps?) then we might conclude that FEMA was simply using this time to provide additional training rather than have these folks sitting completely idle.
The point is we don’t know, so to assume anything is dangerous and could cause poor policy or bad decisions in future situations. These are the ‘facts’ that Jeff Jarvis says “anybody can get,” yet nobody seems to have them. And until they do, we can’t take away any important lessons from all this.
The media need to tell us Who, What, When and Where…let us figure out the Why.
There is no truth, absolutely none, that Max and Fritz—Shepard Smith’s legendary Gonads of Steel—are on the short list to be Regis’ running mates.
Who among them is going to give back the portion of Bush’s reputation which has been destroyed by these twits?
In addition to Shepard Smith, Brian Williams got rave reviews and a big audience boost for his “passionate” reporting from New Orleans.
“I’ve seen dead bodies, a lot of dead bodies,” Mr. Williams said, his voice ragged. “I’ve seen the harrowing desperation in the eyes of people just before their own death or the death of a loved one. I’ve seen things I never thought I’d see in the United States.”
Like the reporting of some other journalists on the scene, Mr. Williams’s reporting took a turn in midweek when relief seemed to be so late in coming. On Thursday night, when NBC expanded its newscast to a full hour, Mr. Williams introduced segment after segment with a growing sense of outrage in his voice.
“Rescue workers overwhelmed, food and water scarce, people left behind, becoming more and more unglued,” he said. “Where is the help?”
He added, “The people inside the city of New Orleans are asking repeatedly to people in Washington, ‘Are you watching? Are you listening?’ ”
As far as Mr. Bennet goes, Mr. Broussard’s fabrications would never have been discovered but for bloggers.
And as much as I like Gandelman and Jarvis I still have to say that they are endorsing flat out lying in this case, all in the pursuit of their own politcial agenda.
His conclusion on the HIV issue is more trouble some. So far as I’m aware, Dean has never taken a stand on the case of this particular little girl. I’d like to hear a comment from him, before I label him a serial killer.
In trying to defend journalism, Jarvis expresses exactly what is wrong with journalism today. Reporting is no longer the end in itself but simply a means to an end. Their purpose, as journalists themselves see it, is not to report the news but, rather, to change the world.
It is difficult to fully express how dangerous this is. It is the very backbone of agenda journalism—opinion disguised as fact. A reporter’s pre-conceived beliefs determine what he finds newsworthy and how news is to be presented in order to achieve maximum effect in advancing those beliefs. Facts are never allowed to get in the way of The Truth. Thus journalists become mere mouthpieces for whatever ideology they support.
Thus journalists become mere mouthpieces for whatever ideology they support.
Unlike bloggers, of course.
Unlike bloggers, of course.
It is the rare blogger that hides from their ideology. It is the rare “professional” journalist who admits their ideology enters their reporting.
richard, no one has said that. and most bloggers would admit to their biases.
Smith received “critical praise†(including praise from some conservatives over at the Corner) and “his first visit to Letterman’s couch†for standing on an overpass and wringing his hands, showcasing his concern as his preened before the camera, tossing out implied blame and misinformation with each new utterance,
And looking butt-ugly without his make-up on too (not that I should talk).
TW: not(!)
Jeff:
Oooh, you hit the nail on the head with that one. They are loathe to give context these days. However, they congratulate themselves for having spine and being emotional. As if that takes some special skill.
I can sit in my living room and hurl accusations and outrage at the pictures I see. I don’t need Anderson Cooper to do that for me. I don’t have a research staff and I can’t get the proper people on the phone to ask the questions. I would like CNN to do that for me. I want them to be better than their(our) base insticts, to be the cooler head. To tell me the facts, the context, and give me the power that comes with the truth.
Jarvis wants journalism to be more like blogging, and I’m not sure that would be an improvement, given the kind of crap I read on blogs these days.
I’d like journalism to be more like journalism and less like political activism, preening, or link-whoring.
Incidentally, Weinberger was on the Dean Campaign’s payroll.
I actually agree with you, Richard. That would be the preferred way to go. However, since many in the journalism profession, including a significant portion of those who train future journalists, are more inclined toward the Jarvis view I don’t think that’s possible. At least not immediately. I would at least settle for the blogosphere’s tradition of admitting bias and ideology up front and allowing the consumer to consider that when drawing his conclusions.
The “blogosphere’s tradition of admitting bias and ideology up front” ain’t what it used to be. Sure, we’ve always admitted to bias in the analysis of the facts, but with the advent of paid shills in the blogosphere we’re no longer operating on the same facts any more. In the Aaron Broussard case, some of the paid shills, such as Weinberger, were able to believe that Broussard was an honest man crying real tears, but others of us saw through his act immediately. As the facts came on-line, we were validated, but the shills rejected the facts that didn’t fit with their canned narrative that it was all Bush’s fault.
What can you do about that level of bias, bias so severe it’s simply impervious to the facts?
At least blogs can be funny. Watching the news is like watching your maiden aunt, who is inclined to hysteria on account of the fact that forty years ago her fiancé went out one night to “get cigarettes” and never came back, have one of her nervous breakdowns in your kitchen again.
In trying to defend journalism, Jarvis expresses exactly what is wrong with journalism today. Reporting is no longer the end in itself but simply a means to an end. Their purpose, as journalists themselves see it, is not to report the news but, rather, to change the world.
Baloney. Journalism is a but minor player in the massive entertainment industry. Profit is the only motive for all media conglomerates. Journalists are merely corporate employees who seek fame and a generous salary (or a piece of the action) and therefore do exactly as they are told by their corporate managers.
Whatever sells is what the media conglomerates desire. They could care less about changing the world unless that helps to increase profits.
To claim that media conglomerates–and their small, weak, and mostly effete “news” divisions–have a specific political bent is childish and naive.
If you expect “journalists” or news divisions to promote “truth,” you are kidding yourseleves. Modern corporate “news” is just another form of mindless entertainment and is amoral and apolitical.
Blogging is just lousy op ed piffle for the most part; 1 million blogs means 1 million lousy, half-assed, and mostly misinformed opinions. Whoopie-effing-doo, that’s all we need is more crap to pile onto the massive shitpile created by the corporate media. Blogging is certainly not journalism. Most bloggers are not only lousy writers, they are even further removed from objectivity than corporate “journalists.”
A reasonably educated, enlightened, and conscious citizen can use common sense and a healthy dose of skepticism to guide him or her through the highly polluted “information superhighway” of our modern culture. I don’t expect any source of information to contain nothing but “truth” any more than I expect every one of you to be 100% honest, ethical, moral, and heartfelt when expressing opinions on your blogs.
What I find weird and disheartening is the fanactical certainty with which so many people in the blogging world carry themselves as they promote their ideas and beliefs. To me, that is much more dangerous than the lies, half-truths, and complete bullshit that the mostly amoral, apolitical, and profit-driven corporate media peddles.
Richard, keeping doing what you’re doing. These are questions that should be asked. Mat, take a breath and adjust your tin foil hat.
It is disgraceful.
I don’t know how things work in USA, but here the TV stations operate with a Broadcasting License.
Is it too right wing to suggest that the terms of the license ought to include not putting lives in danger by spreading false rumours, or for that matter, undermining people’s rights with false reporting?
If a power company decided to deny electricity to those whose political view they didn’t like, or to send dangerous power surges down the lines because it was entertaining, they’d lose their license wouldn’t they?
How is the principle different for a Broadcasting License?
Kip’s got an excellent point here – to what standard of accountability should the media be held in light of their status under FCC regulations?
“Blogging is just lousy op ed piffle for the most part; 1 million blogs means 1 million lousy, half-assed, and mostly misinformed opinions.”
Congrats on making one-million-and-one! The problem here isn’t your hobgoblin of “corporate media,” but rather of these career storm chasers being routinely ridiculed by their colleagues, and by folks like The Daily Show, and therefore trying desperately to find a way to assert the journalistic credibility of their Action News!!-style reporting. These were frantic plays to justify people standing in the rain and saying it’s wet.
Maybe Mssrs. Williams and Smith will find themselves up for an Emmy for “Most Emotionally Evocative Reportage.”
Rep. Peter King destroys Chris Matthews in re coverage of the Katrina.
Transcript here:
http://www.radioblogger.com/#001017
…hobgoblin of “corporate mediaâ€Â
“Hobgoblin.” Rigggggght. More than fifty percent of all media is owned by 20 corporations. “Hobgoblin” my ass. For people who try to be so clever and “aware,” why does the obvious escape you guys?
Mat, take a breath and adjust your tin foil hat.
See above. Moron.
Gosh, you’re right Mat. Oh for the days of the mom and pop media outlets…damn those never existed. Okay, oh for the days of the Independent free-lance reporters…damn those still exist. Turns out the best ones are blogging.
The problem isn’t that we’re stupid or blind, Mat, it’s that you ignore the facts to push your own preconceived agenda. The media, as “corporate bound” as it maybe, is actually more fractured now than it has been in a long, long time.
And even at its worst, it isn’t bad simply because some one happened to pay a lawyer a few thousand bucks to incorporate. It’s bad becuase individuals within it, for a variety of reasons, including greed, sloth, bias and tunnel vision (tunnel vision Mat, that should ring a bell with you) do lousy jobs.
It’s not a case of media regulation (not that anyone on this Blog has suggested it is), but of establishing sensible contract terms between Gov’t (representing the people, who own the bandwidth) and media proprietors.
And one of the contract terms darn well ought to be that they don’t report blatant falsehoods as facts. Doesn’t that meet the ‘not entering a crowded theatre and shouting fire’ standard by which freedom of speech is judged? Political bias is one thing, but to spread dangerous rumours in the middle of a natural disaster warrants criminal prosecution.
Holders of drivers licenses aren’t allowed to drive on the wrong side of the road (except there in USA of course, where you’re obliged to), and those with shooting licenses are obliged to follow very strict rules for very good reason.
And yet holders of an extremely limited number of broadcast licenses, who between them control most of the essential information citizens need to go about their lives and business, can behave with an absolutely outrageously disregard for the truth and the people have no way to challenge them.
An appalling state of affairs for any free country (yours and mine both).
Chicken Little came running into town one day screaming: “The sky is falling! The sky is falling!” Created a small buzz as the townspeople laughed and teased him. He kept screaming, and it was a real slow day, so the King decided to humor him and summoned the Wizard to investigate. The newspaperman tagged along as they went out into the field.
Ending number one:
“Here is where it happened,” said Chicken Little, pointing under an apple tree, “I was sitting right there when a piece of the sky hit me on the head.”
“It was an apple fell and hit you,” said the Wizard.
“Then where is the apple?” asked the Newspaperman.
“One of those deers over there most likely ate it.” said the Wizard and headed back to town.
The Newspaperman’s headline said:
CROWN DECLARES SKY IS NOT FALLING.
Everyone had a good laugh about that as they walked by, not bothering to buy a paper. The King was being laughed at and the Wizard was looking for another job.
Ending Number Two:
“Here is where it happened,” said Chicken Little, pointing under an apple tree, “I was sitting right there when a piece of the sky hit me on the head.”
“It might have been an apple fell and hit you,” said the Wizard.
“Then where is the apple?” asked the Newspaperman.
“Very good question, something could have happened to it, but we must investigate further, it could very well be that the sky is indeed falling!” exclaimed the Wizard and he hurried back to alert the King. And secure a research grant, of course.
The Newspaperman’s headline said:
SKY MAY BE FALLING, KING IS INVESTIGATING
People lined up in their excitement to buy papers and find out what was happening, so the Newspaperman was happy. The King’s popularity went up when it became apparent he was looking out for the people. And the Wizard had a fat sack of gold to investigate if the sky really was falling.
I haven’t thought up a moral yet, I am open to suggestions.
The charge of racism is a charge that should be arrived at, not started from. There won’t be a breaking news story that NEWSFLASH! No Racism Involved at SuperDome, Afterall. It takes absolutely no intellectual analysis to look at a picture of minorities and decide racism must have been involved. To jump to the racism conclusion is what…racism? itself.
I’ve seen Aaron Brown and Anderson Cooper float the idea racism was at play in the government’s response to Katrina. I’ve never heard either say, “You know, I’m a big fat racist and I think other people are too!”. It’s always an accusation that someone else is racist.
But sometimes, the story isn’t about race at all even if it is about different races. Just imagine Katrina being all white people, and imagine if what happened would have been any different.
Now imagine if WACO had been a COMPOUND full of BLACK PEOPLE. Imagine how that story would have been covered.
Shep Smith should be cock-punched for his crappy, emotional, myopic “reporting”. I’d say the same thing about Brian Williams but I’m pretty sure he doesn’t have a cock.
I agree with a previous comment. I to used to like Shepard Smith but now when I see him all I think about is inane and insane repoting on the overpass.
I now refuse to watch him.
If the over-emotional histrionics we got from major media outlets during Katrina is the new standard for journalism—and is applauded in polls of viewers—then the Dianification and Oprahfication of Western society is proceeding apace.
How much does anyone want to bet that neither Shepard Smith nor Brian Williams ever went inside either the Dome or Morial?
Speaking as a New Orleans native with family still down in New Orleans I need to ask exactly what was it that Sheppard Smith said that has everyone here up in arms? Specific quotes if you have them.
Was he incorrect in stating that the people on the overpass did not have food and water? Was he incorrect in pointing out the dead body that was left out to rot? Was he incorrect in stating that there was no food and water inside of the dome? Did he get all of the story right? Nope. Do you think that all reporters should just keep quiet until they are absolutely sure of the entire story? Is there a point when anyone is absolutely sure of the story? Are y’all sure that there were no rapes inside or the dome? Are y’all sure beyond a shadow of doubt that there were no murders inside of the convention center?
Tell me if a reporter waits to tell a story does he risk being spun by the government? Do any of you believe that it is possible that the various government officials are eager to appear like control was lost?
I don’t know the answers but I would rather have my reporters grabbing government officials by the neck and asking them what the hell is going on rather than waiting 5 days to find out. Y’all appear to believe that everyone down there had plenty of time to discover the facts…sorry that just aint so. By being emotional and building a fire under the officials Sheppard Smith and others got the Government off their asses. When he cornered that State Highway Patrol Spokeperson and demanded to know what the plan was to get food and water to those folks on the over pass that was absolute classic reporting in my view.
Pierre
Prsenting facts is fine. Screaming and crying “Where are the Feds” when the Feds were there ready and the bloody Governor keeps them out is not fine. Reporting is reporting. Assigning blame is not reporting.
And exactly how was Sheppard Smith supposed to know that the State Government was holding back the Feds? Or are you suggesting that he should have said nothing until he could know all of the facts? I am quite certain people would have died but at least your very strict journalist rules would have been followed. What are a few lives in the face of principle…?
Pierre
Yes.
What are you talking about? Lies save lives, the truth kills?
Whatever happened to haste makes waste?
And it’s equally as possible that Smith’s reporting cost lives. How many rescue efforts were delayed by security fears driven by the press?
Your entire argument is absurd.
</blockquote>And exactly how was Sheppard Smith supposed to know that the State Government was holding back the Feds? Or are you suggesting that he should have said nothing until he could know all of the facts? I am quite certain people would have died but at least your very strict journalist rules would have been followed. What are a few lives in the face of principle…? <blockquote>
How did blaming the Feds expedite anything? How does blaming anyone help anything? Those people were hurt not by the Feds and Bush but by Blanco. It is completely dishonest to pin this all to Bush but that’s what has happened and the left is a collective willing accomplice to the media in this lie.
Smith could have asked for help and left it at that. Having read the accounts from those who were actually inside the dome I doubt that Smith was ever really in there in the first place.
Well Jeff certainly it is possible that my entire argument is absurd, my godlike ability to see the truth of everything departed me about 3 weeks ago. Besides that I am humble enough and old enough to know that truth is elusive in events the size of Katrina. All I can say is Sheppard Smith reported that there were enormous amounts of people stranded on the overpasses, my eyes confirmed this fact, he reported that there was no food and water for those people and no one denies that fact. He reported that there was no food and water inside of the Superdome, and that is exactly the truth. Whether he was inside or not he got it right. How do I know? Because my Mother In Law was inside and was by Thursday begging for both, though she had reported the shortages Monday night.
What is truly absurd is your falling for the line that journalists were the ones who caused the complete collapse of the command and control which is what drove much of the problems. What is even more absurd is watching the spin and what an artful job it was, textbook study for those who come afterwards. Put out the rumor that perhaps 10,000 died then when it turns out that ONLY 850 (still counting) died you look like a hero. Put out the rumor that piles of bodies are stacked inside of the Dome and when it turns out that ONLY 10 people died due in part because you didnt think to stock it with food and water and toilets and security you look like a champ.
People died, not because Sheppard Smith accurately reported that there was no food and water for thousands of people on Expressway, but because government officials lost control of the situation. Had not journalists like Sheppard Smith gotten hysterical General Honore might not have been able to step in as quickly as he did and restore command and control.
Now on to your specific counter arguments.
You state that Sheppard Smith should have waited to report that those people were lacking food and water on the overpass until he understood who was supposed to be responsible for getting to them. Wow typing that out I was struck by how absurd a thought that was….hehe. You sure you want to stick to that position? So then if Sheppard Smith witnesses you and your family in a fire he shouldnt report it until he clearly understands which parish you live and who should respond because he might hurt the feelings of those who hear him but don’t feel they have the power to respond?
Lies kill? I challenged you to provide the quotes that show exactly where he lied and you have not. Are you held to a different standard than Sheppard Smith? Do you not have to prove your allegations? Where is your evidence?
You guys are dealing with a government down here that is so corrupt that almost anything you can imagine is possible. And yet your laser beams are set to destroy someone who at best can be accussed of being hysterical.
Pierre
Pierre —
I’ve written close to 10,000 words on Katrina, including extensive write-ups on the breakdown of command and leadership. So your challenges mean nothing to me. I’ve made my arguments, and I have a search function. Do your own homework.
And it’s not “Sheppard.”
And yet your laser beams are set to destroy someone who at best can be accussed of being hysterical.
The hysteria was the significant factor for why numerous FEMA contracted truck drivers refused to drive to New Orleans. They heard there were snipers trying to take out helicopters. Armed gangs taking over the city. Bodies piling up inside the Superdome.
Oprah even had the police chief, Eddie Compass, on he show saying that babies were being raped in the Superdome… broadcast unchallenged.
The media’s complicity in passing along such hysterical reports extended ths suffering. The delay that came about trying to hunt down replacement drivers (scared away from false hysterical reports) who would drive much relief supplies made FEMA look like it was dragging their feet… FEMA was having to overcome an unforeseen obstacle exacerbated by the “reporters”.
Shep played his part in setting the stage for media meltdown.
Dear Jeff,
Ooh Jeff being a spell checker is a very bad way to proceed in any discussion…cheap shot. But hey get them where you can. By the way I have written nearly 4,000 words on the hurricanes when I wasnt either out of power, seaching for people in shelters, watching the kids while my wife searched for her mom in Dallas and Houston. Its personal for me…its not about politics.
First we had the left nearly orgasmic that Bush had managed to step on his dick by flying over the devastation in his big jet. Bad play on Bush’s part which was odd considering how thoughtful he usually is.
Now we have the right side of the blogsphere rejoicing that the press, those bastards whose every breath makes one shudder, may have exaggerated the toll in Louisiana. We have every single idiot on the right side of the blogsphere claiming that HEY things werent so bad in Louisiana…sheesh it wasnt the WORST natural disaster it was ONLY the 7th Worst. (which btw is wrong, it is the 5th worst and moving up).
We have become a political football for both sides to beat up each other. The right side of the blogsphere can beat the evil dudes in the press up and the evil press can beat the President up. In the meantime a historic city is in absolute ruins…with what will probably be well over a thousand dead, just in the Greater New Orleans area. Not only that but here are some of the things that did in fact happen in New Orleans.
1. 200 Police officers deserted their posts
2. Citizens took up armed patrols to defend their properties from looters.
3. All city services including hospitals water food power and whatever else you might consider important vanished.
4. Gun battles did in fact happen between looters and police and National Guard.
5. The SWAT team did in fact respond to gunfire inside of the Convention Center.
6. Shots were heard inside of the Superdome.
7. Thousands of people were directed to live on an overpass without food and water.
8. All communications inside of Louisiana were hopelessly fouled up, even in Baton Rouge 70 miles away.
9. Hugh Hewitt bleating about how the networks didnt manage to get anyone inside of the Convention Center shows just exactly how out of touch he is with what the situation was like.
10. Oakwood Shopping Center on the Westbank was indeed burned by looters.
11. The 82nd Airborne was called in perhaps the US government believed it was just as dangerous as everyone else down here believed eh?
12. Finally the press was being given these stories by the Mayor, the Chief of Police and others in a position to supposedly know. To blame the press for believing the Mayor and Chief of Police and to say that they were supposed to fact check them by sending people where no one could go is beyond hilarious.
Not sure if any of you bleating about how poor the reporting was actually understand what it is like to be inside of a Major US City that has completely collapsed. But I can tell you that imagining that anyone could simply go to where the news was and investigate shows a serious lack of common sense. Even the police did not go into parts of the Superdome and the Convention Center was much worse than that…
But of course now that Hugh Hewitt says that that nothing happened in the Superdome and Convention Center we all know that the reporting was just a plot to get Bush. So now we retaliate by getting the Press…what a stack of Bullshit. All the while the story gets lost because its more important to attack each other than to get it right. Same damn thing is happening with 9/11…its pitiful.
Pierre
Pierre —
If you haven’t bothered to read my previous posts on Katrina, you’d do well to stop making broad assumptions.
Either go back and read the posts from the beginning or quit wasting my time.
You assume that I haven’t read some of your other “coverage”.
This article provides more than enough evidence that instead of trying to understand what happened in New Orleans you are jumping on the Bandwagon to bash the press and protect the Bush administration.
You set unreasonable demands for truth while not having much of a clue on what it was like in New Orleans. I was watching Shepard Smith and your characterizations while amusing merely amuse those of you who have no idea what a US City looks like when it decends into anarchy. We needed people to get upset. We didn’t need the President to fly over the city looking out of his window down at us. We needed him to get emotionally involved. NOT because it was his fault but because we are all American Citizens and we were trapped in the incompetence of our local officials.
For sure we can be blamed for that but save us first then blame us. Shepard Smith in his own way lite a fire under all of the officials involved in the fiasco. When he cornered that State Highway Patrol Spokeman and demanded to know what they were going to do about all the people on the Overpasses, sent there by incompetent local officials, it was beautiful. That you think that is something to make fun of says more about your humanity then it does about his desire for a pulitzer. We were having record breaking heat at the time and thats a wee bit different in Louisiana than in Colorado.
So far on Sheps side I see him actually doing something to protect and help those who most needed it. On the right side of the Blogsphere I see attempts to limit the damage to the President…damn those who died. Not impressive.
As far as wasting your time, I don’t do yes man routines.
Pierre Legrand
If that’s the standard of evidence you use to make all your broader judgments, no wonder you sound both smug and completely uninformed.
Shep Smith was in touch with an entire NEWS ORGANIZATION. They could have told him in his ear whose role was what, etc. So please, knock it off. You’re making a fool of yourself. The very problem with the press wanting to “light a fire” and get somebody to “do something”—when they engage in those activities in advance of the facts—is that we get, after the fact, feds making overtures about altering Posse Comitatus, taking over control from sovereign states, etc. All because Shep Smith felt so much.
And that’s precisely how everyone of your comments sounds. YOU JUST CARE MORE THAN EVERYONE ELSE, SO DEEP IS YOUR SOUL.
Please.
If you want to make future comments on the subject, try doing it in a live thread.
Pierre
Kiss my ass. I for one know what a major US city looks like when there is complete and total anarchy. I for one sir, lived through the LA riots in the early 90’s. Stop your f’ng sobbing……..
Judging by your comments, Pierre le fou, it looks like you have trouble doing any kind of man routines.
hehe..You must be teaming up with gail to come up with that funny shit. Picture both of you standing next to each other rubbing your heads together furiously to come up with something clever and naturally failing.
Impressive respond to arguments with personal attacks and not even very clever ones. Y’all haven’t spent much time on the Usenet eh?
Pierre
okay, that explains a lot.
Who are you talking to, Pierre?
Do you really think you’re scoring points or doing your position any justice here? You’re a moron. Honestly. Don’t mean that just as an insult. It’s an empirical fact, from what I’ve read.
Seriously. You’re all self-righteous emotionalism and ad hominem. You have nothing of substance to add. Go away. Please. You’re bringing down the property value and offending all of my sensibilities.
More intelligent discourse from you eh Jeff? Moron…impressive comeback. Though I admit it is entirely possible that you are more clever than I, matter of fact I am willing to grant that possibility to every one of your camp followers. Strange though that you have been reduced to name calling…must be the way that intelligent people deal with arguments they cannot answer.
As far as lowering the property values yup thats true with the level of thought going on around here it is entirely possible that my questions might lower your value.
Pissant wake up earlier if you want to be rude with me.
Pierre Legrand
You haven’t made an argument that I can’t answer. It’s that I’ve already answered it. And I’m not here to service you.
And be careful with who you are calling a pissant. A couple of Malkin links doesn’t turn you into a thinker, trust me.
I’ve asked you to stop posting on a dead thread. You’ve ignored me. And pretty soon I’m going to cease being nice.
Hey Jeff & Pierre:
Enough!!!! Please get each others e-mail and hash this out between you. Do not continue to bore us with your know it all attitudes.
When you have something on a new topic let us know.
Uh, this is my site, Hank. You don’t like it, take a hike.
Hey Jeff:
If that’s hte way you treat your readers I guess I will take a hike. I do agree with your position but I was just expressing my opinion.
How I treat my readers? What, you mean providing them with new, free content everyday, as well as with a place to post their views?
WHAT A BASTARD I AM!
What I won’t countenance, though, are readers who tell me how to run my site. You essentially told me to shut up on my own site.
When I come to your house and tell you to shut up and go get me some food, see how you like.
Hey Jeff:
It’s Friday afternoon. It’s been a long week. Take the weekend off and I will write your column. You are also welcome at my house anytime.
It’s useless, Jeff. Most people care nothing about the realities involved, they just KNOW Bush could have done SOMETHING! I mean, he’s the President and all presidents have a magic wand. Pepe Le Pew apparently is one of those people. I say fuck ‘em.
What about the gay porn cock of lies… He is responsible for Shep not doing it correctly. Seriously though Jeffery. (Bad Joke)
[…] veracity of the individual facts that are used to construct it (recall Jeff Jarvis’ argument in the aftermath of Katrina and its sensationalistic coverage that it is the job of the media to place the story in some sort […]