Aventures in Media
There’s a lot of ire on progressive blogs about now directed at the McCain campaign’s allegedly sleazy tactics. In truth, though, I don’t blame candidate for doing what they think will win the election. What I do wonder about is the psychology of the pond scum who run cable news programs. Let me give you an example.
If I had an opportunity to conduct a one-on-one interview with an official McCain campaign spokesperson, I think I would ask her if she doesn’t worry that McCain’s proposed federal spending freeze is a pro-cyclical measure that would tend to deepen an economic downturn. I think that’s a question with a solid grounding in facts and theory, it addresses an issue of considerable national interest, and I don’t think it’s gotten much attention. I would ask her, I would listen to her reply, and then depending on what she said I would ask some followups. In my view, that would be informative and that some people wound find it interesting.
But that’s why they pay David Gregory the big bucks and not me. Instead, shortly before I left the office, he asked McCain campaign spokeswoman Nicole Wallace a question about whether or not John McCain would bring up Bill Ayers at tonight’s debate. He didn’t ask her a question about Obama’s acquaintanceship with Bill Ayers. Nor did he ask her about an issue that’s more substantive than Obama’s acquaintanceship with Bill Ayers. Rather, he decided that a question about Obama’s acquaintanceship with Bill Ayers would be too substantive. So instead he asked a question about the McCain campaign’s short-term Ayers-related tactics. This is an issue, it seems to me, of no public interest whatsoever. McCain either will or will not bring up Ayers in a few hours. We don’t need to waste time on an inquiry about it. My guess is that, like Wallace, he won’t bring it up unprompted, but will bring it up if the press gives him a good opening. For example, had Gregory asked Wallace about the pro-cyclical impact of a spending freeze she would have looked like a moron if she pivoted to Ayers. But since instead he asked her about whether or not McCain would talk about Ayers, naturally she got in some points about Ayers.
As a means of running a presidential campaign, that’s called playing to win. But what kind of way is that to run a news show?
30 Responses to “Aventures in Media”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
October 7th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Uh, profitable? Did you skip the day in poli sci 101 where the TA discussed the move from news media as a public service to news media as a profit-driven enterprise?
October 7th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
David Gregory is all about David Gregory. He will ask whatever question he thinks gets him ratings. Sometimes it’s a tough question, sometimes it just contains all the hot button words.
Like most TV pundits, he is very smart, highly-paid, and mostly a douchebag.
October 7th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
But what kind of way is that to run a news show?
It’s called the “maximization of network profits via mazimization of eyeballs and hence advertising rates” way to run a news show.
October 7th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Nicolle Wallace is filth, of course, and presumably knows where David Gregory lives. Ask the wrong questions, and she’ll bite his balls off while he sleeps.
October 7th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
Yeah, what makes you think cable news is , you know .. a real news show?
But I will note that bottom-sucking butt kissers in our news media do have fine-tuned radars for their personal interests.
So what you see in the pundits, anchors etc closely matches what the OWNERS of the TV networks want you to see.
Like those 4 days of continuous coverage after the Sept 11 attack — endless fact-free commentary and scenes of death and destruction. But 7 years later and the lying cocksuckers have STILL not given us a truthful account of WHY the attack occurred. Even though the answer lies in their own archives.
That’s not just lying — that’s Rovian Lying.
October 7th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
David Gregory could have asked…
Nicolle, since you think past associations are important can you please tell me about McCain’s affiliation with Army Maj. Gen. John Singlaub or Gordon Liddy.
October 7th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
The best part of Nov. 5? Gregory’s show is OVER! Also, I ceased taking him seriously when I saw him dancing/rapping with Rove at the White House Correspondent’s Dinner. Seems like when Russert was alive, he was a tad more objective. Now he’s just a mini-Brokaw. (Which is not a compliment.)
October 7th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Caught your piece on atlantic.com about guilt by association.
Did I simply miss the part where Mr. Liddy killed a few people? Did I somehow skim over Liddy’s plotting to kill cops and soldiers?
Some associations are more damning than are others.
October 7th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
“It’s called the “maximization of network profits via mazimization of eyeballs and hence advertising rates” way to run a news show.”
That’s the way it works at Disney (ABC), CBS/Viacom, Time-Warner (CNN) and NewsCorp (Fox).
However, it is not the way it works at General Electric (NBC/MSNBC).
General Electric makes less than 10% of their money off of news and entertainment.
The other four networks make over 90% of their money off of news and entertainment.
General Electric makes the bulk of their money off of financial services and healthcare, both of which are highly regulated by the government.
ABC, CBS, CNN, and Fox are all trying to maximize eyeballs and advertising revenues.
General Electric, on the other hand, is trying to create propaganda to gain a better bargaining position for how to split up businesses with the federal government. GE having a “news network” would be as if Halliburton had a news network…
October 7th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
So, if elected, they’re afraid that Barack Obama might hang around guys who want to blow up the Pentagon?
Couldn’t Barack Obama, if he were President, just order the Pentagon closed?
Again, there’s absolutely nothing there — there’s absolutely no link between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers that means a f***ing thing.
Yet there John McCain goes, having helped destroy an entire sector of our banking system to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars — more destruction than the Weathermen’s wildest dreams — and this is somehow considered ‘out of bounds’.
F***, but do all Republicans hate America this much?
October 7th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
the mainstream media is a joke, david gregory is not a smart guy. let’s dispense with the equivocations. labeling your opponent a traitor (he wants to win a campaign more than a war) has implications for the country beyond simply “playing to win”.
October 7th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
David Gregory is an elongated simian with the probing mind of a small bag of Skittles. He truly embodies what the late, great Norman Mailer called “The quintessential moronic animus of the journalistic mind.”
October 7th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
This line of questioning reminds me of the “is she or isn’t she pregnant” sections that run in tabloid news. As Jennifer Garner put it, you’ll all know for sure pretty soon if she is or if she isn’t. It’s fine reporting for the tabloids because, you know, it actually doesn’t matter to the future of this nation whether or not the lovely Ms. Garner is having a child.
But, uh, McCain appears to have embraced a “cut spending during a recession” policy that would make Herbert Hoover’s economic policies look good in comparison. I think fleshing out the details and how he expects it to play out, and what his reaction would be to certain likely scenarios. Like, say, 20% unemployment. Would he consider a stimulus at that point, or just keep cuttin’ taxes and spending (and, again, WHAT spending exactly?) and hoping for the best?
October 7th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Gregory, who followed George Bush onto the White House beat in 2001, is part of a generation of Washington political journalists conditioned to Rovian message control. They assume that no substantive question will be answered, so they do this strategy/horse-race stuff. They are going to be completely out of their depth covering the Obama administration.
If Gregory’s smart, he’s looking for a news-reading job somewhere.
October 7th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Did I somehow skim over Liddy’s plotting to kill cops and soldiers?
“Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they’re going to be wearing bulletproof vests.”
-G. Gordon Liddy, 8.26.94
October 7th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
I watched the same interview and all I can say is David Gregory needs to grow a pair. Not only did the McCain spokesperson say anything she wanted without Gregory challenging her, he did the same with the Obama spokesperson in the next segment. Say what you will about the bias of Fox news or Maddow but I’d rather have a partisan reporter asking tough questions of the opposition than a reporter rolling over and playing dead during an interview.
October 7th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
“In truth, though, I don’t blame candidate for doing what they think will win the election.”
Really? Leave aside the media, horrible as they are. Unless you are not being clear or I am misunderstanding you, you do not condemn a candidate for lying (as McCain and Palin are unarguably doing minute by minute) or, and worse, stirring up hatred and even violence towards their political opponents (which McCain and Palin, at least arguably, are pretty much doing at this point). This is a pretty stunning, and quite frankly despicable, statement. Whatever it takes to win is A-Ok for Matt. Dick Nixon would be so proud (and, unllike Matt, I not only remember him well but had had a chance to vote against him).
October 7th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
This is a continuation of the scandalous reporting of Campaign ‘08
1. Reporters seem to report only on what the candidates say and ignore in-depth reporting on what it means or if it’s truthful.
2. When did reporting on potential campaign ads replace reporting on the campaign itself. This is the lowest of the low. The press should not report on an ad as if it were ‘news’ because is isn’t. More importantly, the press should observe and report on VOTERS’ REACTION to the ads because that IS news.
3. At one point in the primaries, Obama was to give a major speech (I think economics) on a Monday. The Sunday before Wesley Clark made his comment about how being held as POW in Vietnam is not a qualification for president. THAT became the story for three days! I was looking to see what Obama said on policy but it was not reported. It was overshadowed by an off the cuff surrogate remark. Did this help enlighten voters? Of course not. It was so bad that Andrea Mitchel even reported that the Obama campaign was miffed by the untimely remark by Clark, but neither NBC nor Mitchel ever reported the content of the Obama speech and policy objectives he outline. They reported that the speech was to be, on Wesley the remarks the day before, on the displeasure within the Obama camp that his major policy speech had been overshadowed by a random surrogate comment. Yet, they never got around to reporting on the Obama policy pronouncement itself? THAT’S how far journalism has sunk in campaign ‘08.
4. When is it just plain wrong for the press to continue showing ads by, or clips by, or speeches by a candidate who continues to mislead and misinform? If the facts on the ’sex education’ bill are wrong, then why keep bringing it up? If a statement by a candidate is taken completely out of context and exposed as a misrepresentation in the media and independent groups that check the truth of claims, why is that claim still circulated by the media. How many pictures of Sarah Palin making the same charge about Obama ‘palling round” or ‘working’ with Ayers do we need before the coverage repetition distorts the campaing itself? Isn’t there a cut-off point?
5. Same thing with exaggeration. Why do the media keep repeating Sarah Palin attacking Obama for association with Ayers? It’s not news anymore. We know the accusation. We know who makes it. By just repeating it, the media beefs it up - intentionally or not.
All of these examples show how the media has made itself the news or taken on the job of ‘interpreting’ the news instead of just reporting it.
October 7th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
I’m going to feel much the same way when every news agency in the country, post-debate, voluntarily goes into a place called the SPIN ROOM to solicit opinions about what just happened on stage.
I don’t understand why, once the Spin Room is full, they don’t lock the door and throw away the key.
October 7th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
David Gregory is a Tom Brokaw wannabe.
October 7th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Wasn’t Nicole Wallace a serial killer on Law & Order:Criminal Intent?
October 7th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Aventures? That’s a new low, even for you Matt.
October 8th, 2008 at 10:33 am
I think this is a very important point. So much of the media today is entirely devoted to “meta” stories. They are not interested in reporting on what the candidate’s plans are, but are instead devoted to reporting on how the plans are playing. They concentrate on the “horse race” rather than on the platforms of the candidates. This is why you see focus group members saying Obama needs to start bringing more specificity. The specifics are available, but few media outlets are interested in discussing them.
March 11th, 2009 at 7:45 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 14th, 2009 at 8:31 am
Incredible site!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 3:15 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 7:09 am
tramadol
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:43 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy cheap viagra