The New Rules
One new this was coming, but since I’d been out of town all last week I hadn’t been following the cable “news” channels where they’re “covering” the Blagojevich scandal with all the “ethics” and “standards” of accuracy that I’ve come to expect from the genre. But this morning on MSNBC there was a lengthy discussion of Obama’s involvement in Blagojevich’s corruption. Of course, there was no evidence of any involvement on Obama’s part. Nor, despite this being a news channel, was there any original reporting of any kind whatsoever. There was, however, a ton of time spent criticizing the Obama campaign’s PR strategy with regard to this issue — the suggestion being that had Obama adopted a better PR strategy, then people wouldn’t be on television making evidence-free guilt-by-association accusations against him.
This strong me as odd. The people making the accusations kept acknowledging that they had no evidence. One might think that communicating to television personalities the fact that there was no evidence of wrongdoing on Obama’s part would constitute a good PR strategy. Given that they knew there was no evidence of wrongdoing, they should have ceased implying that there was wrongdoing. But they didn’t do that at all. Not, I would submit, because of any failings on Obama’s part, but because Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, John Heileman, Mark Halperin, and Pat Buchanan don’t care at all about the accuracy of the impression their coverage gives.
Eventually, they got around to the idea that Obama hadn’t criticized Blagojevich in sufficiently harsh terms and that the reason for this was that Blagojevich has unrelated dirt on Obama and/or Rahm Emmannuel. Several of them deemed that likely, though none of them had any evidence for this proposition.
Sweet, sweet liberal MSNBC.
45 Responses to “The New Rules”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 15th, 2008 at 9:39 am
KNEW , dammit! KNEW !!
December 15th, 2008 at 9:45 am
MSNBC only gives objective liberal reporting 2 hrs a day, Keith O’s countdown and Rachel Maddow- that’s it. Matter of fact- these are the only “liberal” news shows on any “corporate media” tv. MSNBC is so busy trying to prove they aren’t liberal it is pathetic. I just listen to the weather channel in the morning and check mostly progressive blogs for my news….
December 15th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Can.Not.Abide.Mika.The Brezinki spawn is stupid even by talking-babe standards. That apple fell from the tree and rolled off a cliff.
The ubiquitous and batsh*t Pat Buchanan is just there to throw bombs for them to play off.
The rest are no better, save GPS. My cable contract is up next month. Buh-bye, cable news!
December 15th, 2008 at 9:48 am
I’m glad I’m not the only one that was dismayed by that conversation. If that’s all it takes to be on TV, I mean, I can make suppositions with the best of them. Watch: I bet the orders to torture detainees came from the highest levels of the White House…wait.
December 15th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Why are you surprised? The attitude of cable news, much of the rest of the media, and a good chunk of the electorate, particularly the Christian right part, seems to be “Evidence? We don’t need no stinking evidenced!”
December 15th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Dude, get an editor! Some of these posts are close to un-readable!
I am pretty sure you’re referring to the abomination that was today’s edition of ‘Morning Joe’ here. And I have to agree that the shameless, irresponsible, shoddy crap that was being presented as “news” on the show this morning was completely inexcusable. Every person on that show this morning should be ashamed of themselves. They aren’t and will never be, but they should.
Truly pathetic, and they trotted out Halperin to make the case, no less. What a joke! Joe Scarborough – talking about someone else’s forth-rightness, imagine! This from the guy who’s intern turned up dead in his office with a crushed skull, and he came out and claimed she had prior ‘heart conditions’ that caused her death. This guy feels able to smear someone else’s sense of propriety in terms of how to deal with a “scandal” – and this isn’t even an actual scandal (for Obama)!!!
Amazing. How does the guy keep that job? How did he get it in the first place? Why does nobody ask him how come he just suddenly resigned his house seat and went straight to TV commentary? Talk about a free ride!
December 15th, 2008 at 9:57 am
This type of media commentary doesn’t strike me as odd but, rather, premature. Obama said he was gathering facts and would report them in a few days. I suspect that the transition team will release a well researched and detailed brief that will be remarkable in its breadth and transparency, shutting up all but the most wrong-headed conspiracy theorist. Next week the news story will be about the contrast between the the Obama administration and its recent predecessors with respect to dealing with the press during times of political controversy. I could be wrong, but I think Obama is going to surprise some people in the next few days.
December 15th, 2008 at 10:09 am
That’s Morning Joe every day, Matt; they sit around for 3 hours and speculate. It’s not a news show and often irritating. Mika used to be a useful (though not very informed) foil for Joe; but ever since she fell in love with Sarah Palin, she became worthless. How can MSNBC be “liberal” when Pat Buchanan is on 24/7?
December 15th, 2008 at 10:14 am
I keep saying that the Web gives us the illusion of having helped free politics from some bad influences. In practice, blogs give us the ability to complain to each other more frequently about the media, while the right maintains the ability to mobilize and manipulate the media, thus in turn to mobilize and manipulate a gullible public. I wish I knew what to say, other than that it’ll be a touch term ahead. Could blogging help find potential solutions, too?
December 15th, 2008 at 10:18 am
This reminds me of an old Charlie Rose episode during the height of WHitewater. Joe Klein was going on and on about how something Hillary Clinton did at her law firm, while not illegal or a direct conflict of interet, was “creating the appearance of a conflict of interest“. At which point Michael Kinsley basically laughed at him and said Klein is the one creating the appearance by CONSTANTLY TALKING ABOUT IT, even though nothing has been proven.
This is what journalists do, they say that something is creating the “appearance” of something – while of course they fact that they can’t and won’t shut up about that something is the reason the appearance was created in the first place.
December 15th, 2008 at 10:19 am
You can be as snarky as you like, but we *know* MSNBC is liberal, because Howie Kurtz says so almost every time he opens his mouth. And he’s the *media* *critic* at the Washington Post.
You don’t get any more liberal than that!
December 15th, 2008 at 10:33 am
Hmm, I guess I gotta credit CNN. They’re not talking about it much, at least during their news hours in the morning Unless there is actually something new to talk about.
I think the Obama response is sound. If there is nothing there, don’t talk about it. Responding to it would only cause the media to talk about it more rather then less, which would only cause Obama to spend more time responding. This was the lesson of Whitewater.
This is an example of Obama not allowing the daily cycle to dictate what he focuses on.
December 15th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Proves that it’s yet again toime for a blogger ethics panel.
Seriously, watching cable news talk shows is like huffing glue: it’s a really, really shitty high/downer and destroys brain cells. The only time to do it is while sitting on the can in the crapper.
December 15th, 2008 at 10:47 am
I saw this ridiculous discussion this morning, and I think in many ways it was less a product of partisan politics than of a bunch of media folks salivating over the possibility of a “how the mighty have fallen” story for the ages. Obama’s repeated choice to take smart, measured, high road approaches to important issues drives them nuts. They believe with every fiber of their beings that underneath it all there must be a cynical/corrupt/etc. Halperin is particular guilty of this. I don’t think he cares for a minute which party is in power, he just wants to demonstrate that he “sees through the political bullshit” and can give the inside scoop on whats really going on behind the scenes. A politician like Obama who says roughly what he means and means roughly what he says drives him insane.
Also, I feel a little bad for Chuck Todd. You can tell he is appalled by idiocy of the other panelists.
December 15th, 2008 at 10:58 am
These same people were talking about what a terrible, flat-footed reaction Obama had when Bear Stearns collapsed, and how McCain has outmaneuvered him by flying back to DC and bragging about his “leadership” on the bailout bill.
How’d that work out again?
Stax hits the nail on the head. In a week or two, we’ll be seeing paens to No Drama Obama keeping his head and responding in a deliberate manner.
December 15th, 2008 at 11:01 am
I was stuck in the airport yesterday and CNN was doing just this. They spent an incredible amount of time talking about people that were talking about the scandal. It was a giant clusterfuck of non-news. Same story though. Tons of people talking about how much damage this may have done to Obama while simultaneously noting no wrongdoing. Mentioning the Rahm conversations as if it was the worst act of corruption, then mentioning that such a conversation would be entirely within the realm of normal legal politics.
The only obvious thing was that no one had actually picked up a phone and done even one second of actual reporting or investigating. They just get regurgitating the talking points of talking heads over and over again.
I don’t have a TV so maybe cable news is always like this, I don’t know. But, it was really gross and shocking experience for me.
December 15th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Personally, it strong me as odd that somebody who’s suggesting getting an editor to somebody else goes ahead and commits the third most famous classic blunder (we all know what the two most famous are) there is: use “who’s” instead of “whose.”
December 15th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Nylund — unfortunately, that bulk of it is just like what you saw. As we say in my house, if you like your news weak and watery, turn on cable news. Lets all remember who owns this “genre”, and along with most of the other working Americans, ignore these assholes and their doublespeak garbage. Its not news just because they say it is. Until our airwaves are out of the hands of the rich corporate whores this idiocy will continue.
December 15th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
just watch Faux News if you want the coroporate American Boardroom version of the news. Olbermann, Maddow on MSNBC may be “liberal” but at least they call a spade a spade and they can’t back it up. they’re not owned by some Billionaire sitting in a office somewhere. MSNBC is the only news i can stomach anymore. of course, the REAL news is online because no one owns the Internet………..yet.
December 15th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Correction: Olbermann and Maddow CAN back up their “liberal” statements of the news. they aren’t just spouting things off the top of their heads. and likewise, they aren’t owned by some Billionaire.
December 15th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Why even waste any time bemoaning it? These people care about one thing and one thing only: eyeballs. Entertaining, titillating stories attract more eyeballs, than, um, having boring old Paul Krugman on to talk about things that really matter. And let’s face it, this scandalette has significant entertaining elements: a really weird, Elvis-like politician, a TV drama-worthy sordidness, and a connection to the world’s most famous person (the incoming president). Yeah, I know said connection isn’t substantive, but the object of Blago’s alleged shenanigans is Obama’s seat, after all.
December 15th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
While it’s not unusual for me to the turn off Morning Joe in disgust, this morning’s discussion was particularly pathetic. Listening to Scarborough, Brzezinski, Heileman, Halperin and Buchanan today was truly stunning – not an actual coherent fact or data point spoken – just innuendo and supposition. Instead of intelligent and insightful analysis, we get a bunch of loud, blathering people just talking without adding anything of value to the discussion.
Morning Joe is a joke … the weekday version of the McLaughlin group. The only question remaining is how long it’s going to take for the credible guests to become so embarrassed by the circus that they begin to turn down future appearances.
December 15th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
Yeah, i hate this post modern type media. Where politicians are expected to say bullshit and it’s good PR. Or they have to come out with a condemning statement in a certain amount of time or they lose points. For a news organization to critique the PR strategy of a politician… that’s just absurdly cynical to me.
December 15th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Joe not only continuously misquoted a New Yorker article, but also kept asking why the media flocked to Wasilla but never reported on Chicago politics, hardly a valid question, if he did a little homework. And he exempts himself as being part of the media.
December 15th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Cable news is like a bunch of old biddies in a coffee clatch.
December 15th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
In fact, Brzezinski was bleating this a.m. about how much time reporters had spent in Alaska trying to uncover Palin’s daughter’s pregnancy. She’s an idiot.
Barnicle and Buchanan are just there because the shelter kicks them out at 6.
January 9th, 2009 at 12:56 pm
January 14th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
February 21st, 2009 at 2:55 pm
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:42 am
levitraVery interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:24 am
Great site. Good info
March 12th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:00 am
tramadol
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:03 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 5:08 am
thanks !! very helpful post! viagra