We knew they were slackers before this last campaign and then the love affair with Obama (whom I like)was over the top but now that Letterman was Rod's toughest interviewer is totally embarrasing. Result...my low opinion sank further. At least we are lucky enough to have Rich Miller here!!
Six Degrees of Separation
· 10 months ago
Well, it certainly has separated the contenders from the pretenders. Apparently, David Letterman's staff researches stories better than the National Journal (ouch!)
anon24
· 10 months ago
It sure has been altered since the election season of '08. If you view them as cheerleaders and "take it all in good fun," as opposed to real journalism, then you'll be OK. Look for impartiality & objectivity and you'll be angry & disappointed.
wordslinger
· 10 months ago
I never took any source as authoritative on its own. The NYT had Jayson Blair, and the Washington Post Janet Cooke, long before Blago. But the lack of research and understanding of the facts was disturbing.
Sadly, my respect for the cable yakkers was only reinforced. Vast Wasteland indeed.
piper
· 10 months ago
Yes. I never realized how pitifully unprepared some of them are. They did even bother to read the criminal complaint, which had loads of info on some really good questions which were never asked. If this situation is typical, then I shudder to think about what were NOT learning from these so called "in depth interviews"!
Yellow Dog Democrat
· 10 months ago
Nah...I always knew that their knowledge, understanding, and coverage of state and local politics was shallow and sensationalist.
Much like their national political coverage.
Yellow Dog Democrat
· 10 months ago
Except Morning Joe, of course!
wndycty
· 10 months ago
What the Blago incident taught me is that whenever any local story becomes national the national media needs to rely more on local experts as talking heads. I hated watching people who were just briefed on what is going on here speaking authoritatively on Illinois and the Blago situation.
Excessively rabid
· 10 months ago
I knew that the standards in broadcast journalism had been declining for decades. I knew the print outlets as a group are facing questions about their continued existence. And I knew that having news be a small facet of the media content industry puts a terrific squeeze on news gathering. I was not prepared for the extent to which national media were willing to take HWSNLBN (He Who Shall No Longer Be Named) at almost face value, either out of naivete or cynicism; I was dismayed by their failure to use sources (such as Rich) with substantial local knowledge; and maybe my own naivete is showing here, but I was appalled by the way they simply used the whole sordid episode to promote viewership and circulation.
Deep South
· 10 months ago
It is all about ratings and bigger ratings bring more money. Geraldo knows this well, that's why he rants and raves and yells. Good theater...good TV...good ratings...so he hopes. Competition among the cable channels is fierce so you get a tabloid take on things. Same theory with the silliness of the View. Good arguments among the ladies brings in ratings. Think Jerry Springer for crissakes.
The sexy part of Blago's issues, from the national media point of view is the selling of the new president's senate seat. Yeah, and toss Oprah's name in there and, well, you're off to the races.
Waco Kid
· 10 months ago
After watching the national media's performance during the presidential primaries and campaign I developed a low opinion of them. The media's buying into Blago's performance only reinforces that opinion.
Sporty41
· 10 months ago
Confirms what opinions I had had previously.
Dan S, a Voter and Cubs Fan
· 10 months ago
They have not changed a bit, they all want the next "watergate" story dumped in their lap.
Red Ranger
· 10 months ago
What bothers me is, if a majority of the national media is as bad at all stories as they were with the Blago affair, our national media is broken. From failure to get basic facts correct, to buying into spin that is simply that, to the failure to ask tough questions, what is the public missing in other stories? What are we not being told about the bailout? The Obama nominees tax issues? Situation with Iran? Etc. There was a disconnect between the national news reporting and what was actually happening. Its clear if you want to be on the national news, one must yell, distill everything down to small bits even if it means leaving out key facts and turn everything into a horserace/game. Its sad.
Secret Square
· 10 months ago
I always knew that TV news coverage of politics, in particular, tended to be very superficial and "horse race" oriented, but I always considered what information they did have to be more or less basically accurate... until the Blago Circus came to town. I particularly question those who bought into the notion of there having been a "rush to judgement" against Blago. I cannot help but wonder what else they have been wrong about.
OneMan
· 10 months ago
My low expectations of Larry King were lowered even more.
Levois
· 10 months ago
LOL! It hasn't changed my opinion of him. It's only made him much more goofier that he has been if he had only kept his show in Illinois.
Wumpus
· 10 months ago
Validated my prior thoughts. They cared more about the "story" ie ratings, than the actual facts. But I can't fault them as Blago was pretty ridiculous.
Louis G. Atsaves
· 10 months ago
When the national media is outperformed by an entertainer (David Letterman) you know something is wrong.
It also says something about the national media's inability to handle anything more than a sound bite on any topic. Their current reporting on the stimulus package is still along the lines of who is for it, who is against it, will it be a victory or defeat for Obama, Republicans, others, etc. without telling us what is in it. With the resources available to them, you would have thought that some background information would have been dug up for use by the interviewers.
At least Letterman did his homework and basically told Blagojevich that it appeared that he had his right to due process and chose not to exercise it.
The rest of them are more interested in the sizzle instead of the steak.
chiatty
· 10 months ago
My opinion of local and national journalists has remained the same. The profession is underfunded and driven by the desire to scoop one another at all costs. This "gotcha" mentality plays well in the blogosphere, but we still need real journalists who will cover issues like the impeachment mess in depth and detail, without resorting to the easy and salacious coverage. We saw plenty of that at the local and national level on the Blagojevich arrest and impeachment. News organizations were hungry to get any kind of "exclusive" interview with Blago when he was on the way down, all the better to sell soap and newspapers, I guess, but there are a lot of good stories that are not getting reported. Why do the newspapers and television journalists clamor for the Drew Peterson garbage? Because it's easy. The bottom line is that the journalism field is shrinking, along with their financial bottom lines and we're getting shallower coverage every day.
Anonymous
· 10 months ago
To answer the question, no. My opinion of national TV news remains as low as ever.
And wndycty @11:14 has it right: The laziness of the NY/D.C. media in covering L'Affaire Blago was astonishing. Was it really so difficult for the shows, even Rachel Maddow (whose interview was pretty good) and Keith Olbermann seemed unable to find Illinois-based reporters -- who might just know more about Prairie State politics than Jonathan Alter, Richard Wolfe, Eugene Robinson, Ana Marie Cox, etc. -- willing to be on national TV?
The overall shallowness of national coverage is Exhibit A (if you'll pardon THAT expression) as to why the blogosphere is ascendant.
Phineas J. Whoopee
· 10 months ago
Blago has a gift of babbling for long periods without saying anything or answering the question and pretty soon all the time is used up and the interview is over. He met his match in Letterman who had no qualms about interrupting him or calling him on his BS. I think he purposely avoided the Sunday news shows where they were simply laughing at him and read through him immediately.
I guess I am disappointed in anyone who let's their audience be manipulated, however, it was not just national media-right Don & Roma and Cliff Kelley? Don & Roma are actually proud of that whitewash Blago painted on their show
zatoichi
· 10 months ago
Basic philosophy: What's the headline that makes me look good for the next contract negotiation. Facts and details are minor. Any one of those interviewers could have read and developed some other questions that went beyond the chair and Oprah. They just needed enough to fill 20 minutes max of actual air time. They may know a national niche topic very well, but, as others have said, when it gets local or state, their expertise drifts to the questions handed to them and it shows. Even though it was late in the game, Letterman's crap detector was in full swing. He was very impressive and got right to the point. If he had been one of the first interviewers, the entire TV tour would have come off very different.
bored now
· 10 months ago
no, i agree with ydd. "national" reporters, meaning those who cover politics out of washington, dc are more generalists and imbued with/in the culture of washington, dc. they have neither the knowledge nor the connections to "get" politics outside the beltway. otoh, i wouldn't exactly trust the reportage of local or chicago reporters about national political issues, either (for the same reason). for all the import of politics here (in chicago), reportage of local politics is up there with los angelos, subpar, at best. it's not exactly something i would be proud of...
VanillaMan
· 10 months ago
Has your impression of the national media been permanently altered since Rod Blagojevich’s arrest? Explain.
It is tempting to be a snot by saying that my impression hasn't permanently changed, but honestly, I believe my impression has been permanently changed.
I couldn't have imagined how more openly partisan the national media could have gotten after Kerry in 2004, but I was simply overwhelmed by the Obama lovefest in 2008. It was nauseating.
But still, I had some hope that 20% of national media coverage wasn't crap. I still hoped that we could read between the fluffy lines of bad journalism and find some truth between them. I had hoped that the people shoving openly biased information at me, actually did some kind of research beforehand. I had hoped that they were believers in what they pushed. I had hoped they had consciences.
After how Blagojevich was covered - I just don't see how the national media can ever be considered credible again. Talking heads spouted off without a shred of homework done. These people riffed about our former governor, as though they were journalistic Miles Davis' - compositions taking backseat to their vainglorious bloviating.
These "interviews" were about the talking heads, not about Blagojevich or the facts before them.
Even Letterman, not a journalist, focused on Blagojevich's criminal case, instead of the reasons he was impeached 59-0. Letterman mocked Blagojevich, but still allowed our Little Liar to spout out embarrassing stupidities.
Yes, permanently - changed for the worse.
Northside Bunker
· 10 months ago
NOT every politician in the news is movie material. Disgraced former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich is making the media rounds after being booted for discussing the possibility of selling President Obama's old Senate seat for cash - but he's persona non grata at the big talent agencies. Endeavor TV packaging agent/partner Marc Korman, who hails from Illinois and is pals with Blagojevich, was planning on having a lunch with the mop-topped pol. But when Endeavor head Ari Emanuel found out, he put the kibosh on it, saying, "You cannot do it. You're not going to have lunch with this [bleep]ing guy. Not a chance." Ari is the brother of Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel - who locked horns with Blago about who would succeed Obama as the junior senator from Illinois. A rep for Endeavor declined to comment.
Anon
· 10 months ago
No. These are the same faults visible in the coverage of Clinton's pre-Monica scandals. See Gene Lyons "Fools for Scandal - How the media invented Whitewater" and his book with Joe Conanson "The Hunting of the President." All the coverage of Blagojevich showed is the national media still couldn't find their posteriors with both hands.
This Guy
· 10 months ago
Not really.
Most of the programs Blago was on fall under the category of "News Entertainment" in much the same vein as professional wrestling is "Sports Entertainment."
That said, my impression of the national media has not changed, since I have always held that News Entertainment is the exact opposite of the journalism it purports to be.
Journalism is two-sided (at minimum) and is a service. The national media, at least as it pertains to Blago (and this QOTD), IMHO, is neither.
You Go Boy
· 10 months ago
For the most part, their actions/inactions are a mix of laziness and "anything for ratings" mentality. As such, politicians/crooks get off too often (literaly and figuratively) and average citizens get it in the end (literally and figuratively)
Suzanne
· 10 months ago
Entertainers have been outperforming national media for quite some time. Think Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert. But Dave? What a wonderful, piercing surprise. That interview, unlike any other, stripped the Governor of his bluster and left him looking even smaller and more venal.
Anon
· 10 months ago
My opinion of the national media was not changed. It's been 30 years, at least, since I noticed that no story in the national media dealing with any subject on which I had personal knowledge was accurate, and I've long since concluded that all their stories are equally flawed. What I didn't realize until the national media got involved is how much I have come to respect what I read on Cap Fax. Great job, Mr. Miller.
Concerned Observer
· 10 months ago
Okay, I'll be the one shouting at the wind.
Do I think they did a good job? Nah. Do I think they did the best we could reasonably expect? Absolutely.
Imagine you're an anchor at CNN. You're trying to be "informed" on:
-- Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- A growing global economic crisis -- US Senate situations in New York, Minnesota and Illinois -- A plane that crashes in the Hudson River -- Your regular "run-of-the-mill" shootings, car chases, court dates, etc -- Any number of other issues happening that day -- AND the goings-on of one Rod Blagojevich.
It can't be done in-depth. It just can't. No one is an expert on everything. And if you want MORE depth, then you need more reporters, more cameramen, more producers, more people who can actually get and track down the news. BUT...you can't do that, because everyone is cutting budgets, not adding to them (and don't get me started on the arcane union rules that plague television).
We think national media, we think Walter Cronkite, or Peter Jennings, or whomever. Those were extraordinary men. There just aren't that many people who fit that bill, and there are a hell of a lot more TV channels out there than there once were. And, we have a lot more of the world to cover than we once did.
While we're on the subject, I don't exactly agree with Rich's position to not cooperate when producers for these shows call and ask for background information. I see his point, but I think it's bad form to refuse to give them information when they call, and then say 'these people don't know anything' after the fact. (that's a paraphrase, not a direct quote)
Now, I also think they should compensate you for your time, and if you don't ask for that, you should!
Rich Miller
· 10 months ago
===I think it’s bad form to refuse to give them information when they call, and then say ‘these people don’t know anything’ after the fact.===
I'll tell you why I think you're wrong about this.
They never did much research on their own. Essentially, they wanted to short-cut through me. Since they wouldn't take the time to do their own research and had very few if any decent questions I decided not to waste my time on them. I told most of them to just spend some time going through the blog. They wanted me to do their work for free.
Not gonna happen.
Fan of the Game
· 10 months ago
No. My perception of the national media wasn't good to begin. Their handling of the Blagojevich fiasco simply re-inforced my earlier disdain.
As Concerned Observer says, they can't do everything in-depth. However, what they choose to do should be factual and honest.
Kevin Highland
· 10 months ago
As far as tough interviews go I'd rank Glenn Beck & Dave Letterman as the two who really shook RRB's world.
The observation of the things that a CNN Anchor tries to stay informed on is too long. The National Media shouldn't really be covering shootings, car wrecks, fires etc. Too much of what passes as National News is really only a local or regional story that bled.
As big as some of these supposed news outlets are one would think that there would be better research going on in regards to the background of the stories like RRB's and others.
Concerned Observer
· 10 months ago
===They never did much research on their own. Essentially, they wanted to short-cut through me. Since they wouldn’t take the time to do their own research and had very few if any decent questions I decided not to waste my time on them. ===
See, this is fair, to me. I understand it. I don't think I agree with the stance, but I understand it. And I'm not the one with 14 different reporters calling me.
Again, I think you should ask for compensation. If they bought a subscription...hey, it's $300 for a 10-minute phone call and pluggin' their name in the list. If they refuse that, the hell with them.
Concerned Observer
· 10 months ago
==Too much of what passes as National News is really only a local or regional story that bled.==
You mean, like Rod Blagojevich?
Concerned Observer
· 10 months ago
I may have misinterpreted your post -- I thought you meant "bled" as in "bled onto the national airwaves", not "bled" as in "involved blood". I think Illinois' troubles could in a broad sense be construed as a local story that grew national.
To my knowledge, Rod Blagojevich has not actually bled on national television yet.
Rob_N
· 10 months ago
Nope - already knew they were lazy, fingers-to-the-wind types.
train111
· 10 months ago
I remember in 8th grade American History being taught about how 'Yellow Journalism' got us involved in the Spanish American War. Truthfully, has anything really changed in journalism since 1898??
train111
Vote Quimby!
· 10 months ago
Yes, it has. As one old enough to remember Geraldo picking through dirt in some old Chicago building while studying journalism at ISU, I didn't think my opinion of him could sink lower. But after watching/hearing his 'interview' with Private Citizen A, it did. Watching all of that 'coverage' and comparing it with knowledge I had about the issue (most of it learned here), I wonder how I can believe they have any comprehensive knowledge about ANY issue. So I am now even more skeptical of what I see/here on the national stage---and it is a performance, not actual journalism. As far as David Letterman, I started watching him in high school during his NBC days--even before the top ten list. So I was not surprised at all that he was able to deliver a quality, integral interview. As McCain learned last fall, that show is not just entertainment--some nights its not even funny. But it is always worth watching.
NJ commenter
· 10 months ago
I didn't catch the Letterman interview but if what happened was that Letterman wanted to question Blagojevich about the criminal case and Blagojevich wouldn't talk about the criminal case, the fact is, Blagojevich knows that if he goes on TV and talks about the criminal case, it is VERY possible that Fitzgerald will indict him for "obstruction of justice" (See Julie Hiatt Steele case. As one example of "obstructing justice," the federal prosecutor cited her going on Larry King and refuting the story of another witness.) Blagojevich is a lawyer and a former prosecutor himself so he knows how the prosecutor can come up with an artful charge.
If your opinion of the national media has changed, you must have just started paying attention. How many pages of ink and TV minutes did the national media spend on Chandra Levy's disappearance back in 2001? I saw John King's show yesterday on CNN and he's asking his 3-person, all white "panel" of average Americans about Obama making "rookie mistakes." If you're hoping for anything to get done, you have to despair hearing that kind of spin on events wasting time in the national media.
Mike Murray
· 10 months ago
I would say it has not changed my impression of the national media. I have always viewed national media outlets as incompetent and lazy, which of course leads to shoddy journalism that covers drama for drama's sake and is often void of meaningful context.
The coverage of Blago by the national press simply cemented my perceptions in place due to a rampant inability to actually perform journalism.
For example, the national media seemed to accept and proliferate Blago's talking points without calling him out on his lies.
Just by reading the IL constitution, the House Articles of Impeachment, and the Senate's rules for the trial, any moderately capable person could have seen that Blago was full of it. But why do research when you can just quote Blago.
The story came off -mainly because Rod was the one doing all the talking- as if Rod was wronged in some way instead of what the actual story should have been...
"Guv misrepresents the impeachment process and confuses his constitutional rights in criminal court with the rights he is granted in an impeachment trial. Is RRB lying, ignorant, or both?"
Chanson
· 10 months ago
The script readers on the networks are doing what they are paid to do...talking loud/looking pretty . Thanks to the generosity of Mr. Miller, we have a source that has the nuggets of truth against which we can measure others.
Rich Miller
· 10 months ago
It has served to underscore my earlier belief that the media - all media - has no real clue how to deal with pathological liars.
Anonymous45
· 10 months ago
Ever since FOX has become the mouthpiece for the conservative right (thanks Murdoch), the recent biased coverage of the St. Obama campaign vs. Hillary, and the Bush assault on funding for public TV and radio, I don't believe anything I see or hear in the media... Rod was just another sound bite for public information services that have become info conglomerates... BTW, I only read the NYT and Washington Post, and watch WTTW in the Chicago region...the rest is dreck...
Vote Quimby!
· 10 months ago
NJ--you gotta watch the Letterman interview to fully appreciate how much PC-RRB blew up.
tanstaafl
· 10 months ago
My opinion hasn't changed - dismall. Of what I watched, Glen Beck had the hardest hitting interview. I didn't see Letterman. If you don't count Greta and Geraldo (which I don't since I consider them tabloid journalist - remember Al Capone's vault?), Fox's coverage in their regular news programs was fairly good. In fact, I was watching Sheppard Smith during one of Rod's "press conferences", and Sheppard couldn't contain his comments about how wacko Rod was - voicing over during the conference.
Amy
· 10 months ago
No. my impression of the national media was permanently altered with the extreme sexism against Hillary Clinton in the primaries. not criticism, but blatant sexism. maybe they are just in love with pols from Illinois...."oh, look, an Illinois politician!"
wordslinger
· 10 months ago
VanMan, I missed that bit where Rush, Fox, the Wall Street Journal, New York Post and the rest of the News Corp empire were in the tank for Obama.
Maybe they're not mainstream.
NJ commenter
· 10 months ago
Rich,
Regarding "pathological liars" --- most of the Washington establishment, politicians and media, lied us into the war with Iraq! What could be more pathological than that? Haven't held themselves accountable at all, either. All the war mongering pundits, commentators and reporters (Judith Miller, Fareed Zakaria, Jeffrey Goldberg, Charles Krauthammer, Andrew Sullivan, etc. etc.) still go on TV acting like they are experts. Always keep in mind the old saw that "The mills of God grind slowly but they grind exceeding fine," or you could despair, I guess.
My daughter is a 22 year old cancer patient and in a few years we won't be able to keep her on our health insurance. I can already see the national media gearing up to turn health reform into a political football again. They aren't going to be nailing Republican politicians to the carpet about allowing the status quo to stand so that someone like my daughter can never get health insurance due to a pre-existing condition. No, they let someone like McCain or Joe The Plumber babble about "socialism." The national media's idea of a "tough question" was going after Obama about not wearing a flag pin.
Its Just Me
· 10 months ago
Yes, I never realized just how much the media wants to get the day's story out fast and easy, with little attention to what is really going on. I knew that CBS had low standards when they tapped a morning show specialist whose experience was interviewing celebrities, but now I see it is much more than just CBS.
One of the 35
· 10 months ago
I thought Geraldo was a putz before the Blago events. Now I think he is an ultra putz.
carbon deforestation
· 10 months ago
Yes. I used to think that CNN and Fox News would get most of the story right, most of the time. No longer.
Ditto what Atsaves said about Letterman doing a better job than all so-called news people.
Springfield Sceptic
· 10 months ago
Once upon a time the Executive Producer called his staff together and told them he had good news and bad news. The good news was that for the first time in broadcast television a news division had actually made a profit for the network. The bad news was that for the first time in broadcast television a news division had made a profit for the network. The big 3 networks provided news because they were mandated to by the broadcast license issued by the government. Once they found out they could actually make money from it, the quality of the news declined. The entertainment factor increased, to the detriment of all.
Springfield Sceptic
· 10 months ago
He was the Executive Producer of 60 Minutes on CBS.
wordslinger
· 10 months ago
I mentioned it the last time this subject came up, but to see how far we've come, rent "Network." What was outrageous, biting satire in 1977 will have those today who are under a certain age wondering what all the fuss is about.
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
· 10 months ago
Superficial, which is how they like it. Can't be bothered with nuances of stories and they seemingly refuse to dig deep - would rather report things as they appear on their face and conjecture about cause and effect from that point. Not to mention that they'll do anything for even the smallest ratings boost.
Amy
· 10 months ago
for a clue into the nutjob mindset of the national media, read Judith Warner in the NYTimes today....women are dreaming of ......with the President..... what Vanilla Man said!
cermak_rd
· 10 months ago
I think a distinction has to be made between the edutainment news outfits such any show with a personality(ies) at its core i.e. O'reilly, Olbermann, Maddow, King, the View; and actual news reporters such as Brokaw, Lehrer and Williams.
No it hasn't permanently affected my attitudes toward the news media. I don't expect them to deliver objective news because no one can. Everyone has a bias, gather enough sources and sift through the info and arrive at the truth that fits MY bias.
Anon
· 10 months ago
========= It has served to underscore my earlier belief that the media - all media - has no real clue how to deal with pathological liars. =========
Rich - Hunter S. Thompson, in colorful language only he could write, made the same point about Richard Nixon during his presidency!
Say WHAT?
· 10 months ago
Journalists are like politicians; I wouldn't work for 98% of them.
Rich Miller, you don't fit in with them at all. You tell the truth, and don't spoon feed us processed garbage. Capitol Fax is like a breath of fresh air.
Yes, the national coverage altered the way I see them forever. They have lost all credibility with me. They are lazy hacks. I'm sure they will read whatever is handed to them. The thought of them not preparing and thinking before presenting their material is scary. The fact that most people take what national media tells them and act like it is gospel truth is even scarier.
I am amazed at the number of people who have said things that I have challenged and their response is "No, I got that from FOX"! Or "It must be true, it was on CNN"
Captain Flume
· 10 months ago
National news media folks, espcially broadcast types, are pretty fluffy and talk as much about themselves as whatever story has their attention. Most of broadcast is now tabloid, and has been for a long time.
I agree with others here that Letterman was the toughest interviewer for Blagojevich. Not that I would like to see Letterman in a Meet the Press role, but his interviewing style certainly lends itself to the kind of acute observations and intelligent questions that is very rare in any kind of journalism, print/online or broadcast.
I used to be an avid reader of the Columbian Journalism Review, and used it as kind of barometer for critiquing the press. Haven't read it for a long time, or even know if it still publishes; but I have to believe today's quality of national journalism would make the editors of that magazine urp.
VanillaMan
· 10 months ago
VanMan, I missed that bit where Rush, Fox, the Wall Street Journal, New York Post and the rest of the News Corp empire were in the tank for Obama.
Maybe they’re not mainstream.
Perhaps Fox is - the rest are not. I don't think most people even heard of the NYPost. Rush may reach 20 million, but is only quoted in infamy, not credibility. The Wall Street Journal is considered a mainstream business newspaper. You don't hear Ellen quoting from the WSJ.
So claiming that mainstream media wasn't biased in favor of Obama because of the examples you gave is like claiming that coffee is a dairy product because some people use Coffee Mate.
Vote Quimby!
· 10 months ago
Wow---a Hunter S Thompson reference. Been a few years since I witnessed one of those!
wordslinger
· 10 months ago
VMan- that's just silly.
WSJ is bedrock mainstream media -- business, government and politics -- with a 2 million circ. Another Murdoch property, the New York Post's 690,000 daily readers certainly have heard of it. And if Rush is not the most powerful person in the GOP, I'd like to know who is. Is the GOP not mainstream, as well?
Perhaps the mainstream media is not as monolithic as you assume. Life is generally more complex.
But you know, if Rush is looking for a sidekick, VMan, I can't think of anyone better for the job than you.
And who is Ellen?
Concerned Observer
· 10 months ago
Hey, all of you who think Letterman was the best Blago interviewer -- and I agree with you -- need to remember this:
Letterman got to see Rod on all of those other shows, first. He got to digest the information, wait and see how it played out in the legislature, and then interview him. He also has a good-sized staff that prepared all day for two guests that night, one of whom was a guy up for best supporting actor and whose IMDB profile was probably enough background.
Dave's interview was really a different sort of animal from the first 'rounds', if you will. Just important to keep that in mind.
Fed-up
· 10 months ago
It just solidfied in my mind the shallowness of the reporting at that level. Damn the facts - full steam ahead - lets sensationalize the situation and see if we can grab ratings. They are pathetic but then that is just my opinion.
wordslinger
· 10 months ago
CO, there was plenty of information out there for the "first round" of interviewers to get up to speed on Blago. Same goes for the National Journal types. They have research staffs, too.
Letterman is a tv funnyman, not a cast-in-marble champion of truth, justice and the 1st Amendment.
Will
· 10 months ago
No. I haven't been able to take the national press seriously since the lead-up to the Iraq War. The foreign and alternative press was the only way to stay reasonably well informed before and after the invasion. The Blago interviews only confirm what was obvious then.
Independent
· 10 months ago
The national media love soundbites and superficial analysis. For example national media jet into Chicago, see the green roofs and listen to Daley's PR machine, and write puff pieces about Daley as a managerial genius. A thorough analysis would involve much more attention to the rampant corruption, waste, and mismanagement in his administration.
Their kid glove treatment of Blagojevich couldn't lower my opinion of the national media as it was at rock bottom before impeachment.
Concerned Observer
· 10 months ago
Word...what in my post made you think I felt Letterman was "a cast-in-marble champion of truth, justice and the 1st Amendment"? I like Dave, I think he's funny and incredibly smart, but...I don't think I praised him to the heavens.
Anyway...yes, those other people have staffs, absolutely. But even though there are, say, 15 producers working on Good Morning America, it's a safe bet that only one or two of them can be tasked to any given story at a given time. They have another 40 minutes to fill.
Meanwhile, Dave can marshal more resources to the Blago interview (after all, it DID take up two-and-a-half segments) simply by using some of the jokes they didn't like as much the day before. So if HE has 15 people, let's say five of them are tasked to guest prep. They (and he) had an entire weekend to prepare, and had watched Blago stumble all over the place on other shows. They also had the tapes played at the impeachment trial (which others didn't have for obvious reasons)...he had more ammo, and he did a better job. I think those things are connected.
I also think there's a big difference between the national TV media and the national print media. There's no excuse for tripe like the National Journal piece Rich put up the other day. In the print media, you have time to do your fact-checking (especially if your article is published eight days after an event happens). Not checking it is just terrible.
If we haven't learned by now that Blagojevich is a charmer who knows how to spin everything back on message, we'll never learn it. That's why I give the one-on-one interviews a LOT of leeway. Diane Sawyer is good, but Rod is good too, and he can misdirect better than anyone. I'm not saying he got the best of Sawyer -- but he's able to stall, spin, and avoid answering. He's a Hall of Famer at that and very often comes up with a draw, if not a win. All he had to do was play for time, and he does that better than he does anything else (except comb his hair).
Even Dave pointed it out -- "in terms of filling time, you've been terrific."
jake
· 10 months ago
The media is (are?) not all the same. Television, with the exception of Letterman, was awful. Public radio was o.k. The New York Times was o.k. Other supposedly "expert" commentators were all over the map---many didn't know what they were talking about but had firm opinions nonetheless. I think the whole thing was illuminating with respect to figuring out whom to pay attention to, and whom not.
Little Egypt
· 10 months ago
No, I'm not disappointed with the national press. That would mean that at one time I was impressed with them. Never have been.
I can't stand to watch the 24/7 news programs. I will, however, watch Rachel Maddow and Glen Beck because I thought they were dug more at Blago than any of the others (only slightly more). I was disappointed in Glen though when he said he would stand shoulder to shoulder with Blago if he were innocent. Geraldo is a joke. He researches squat and then acts like a high and mighty attorney who knows all the facts. NO ONE KNEW ALL THE FACTS. NO ONE BOTHERS TO EDUCATE THEMSELVES. Letterman came the closest.
Rich, I'm not surprised that some of them came calling on you. All they had to do was go through this blog and they would have found out everything they wanted to know. I do think though that taking time with either Glen or Rachel would have jumped you WAY up there on the national level - if that is your goal and IF they had given you the credit. You would have made an excellent guest on either of their shows.
Unfortunately the 24/7 news programs have become a monster that needs to be continuously fed. They have the resources, they have the manpower, they don't care to take the time to investigate. They're too busy climbing over each other to be the first for the next breaking story. And that folks is the sad state of journalism in the United States.
steve schnorf
· 10 months ago
No, not really. Their lazy ways and need to report 60 and 90 second news stories aren't dangerous, I think, as long as they are reporting on DC, where words substitute for action anyway.
The talking heads are worse than the regular TV and print reporters because they have to fill 24 hours with about 8 stories, so they keep repeating the same s__t over and over, which probably actually causes some people to really believe them.
They are all completely out of their league when it comes to state and local. Many, if not most, of them should be embarrassed at how they handled the Illinois story.
ahem
· 10 months ago
The national media is like the blind men describing an elephant. But I have to join in with the others commenting on Geraldo Rivera. He really is spectacularly jerky.
Anonymous
· 10 months ago
================== As Concerned Observer says, they can’t do everything in-depth. However, what they choose to do should be factual and honest. ===================
Even though the direction has been obvious for a decade or so, what struck me the most was lack of reserve pertaining to the timing of release of "information".
You'd think that with a trial coming up, the media would have focused on simply reporting a few basic facts at this point, instead of jumping on the PR bandwagon.
All Comments
Sadly, my respect for the cable yakkers was only reinforced. Vast Wasteland indeed.
Much like their national political coverage.
The sexy part of Blago's issues, from the national media point of view is the selling of the new president's senate seat. Yeah, and toss Oprah's name in there and, well, you're off to the races.
It also says something about the national media's inability to handle anything more than a sound bite on any topic. Their current reporting on the stimulus package is still along the lines of who is for it, who is against it, will it be a victory or defeat for Obama, Republicans, others, etc. without telling us what is in it. With the resources available to them, you would have thought that some background information would have been dug up for use by the interviewers.
At least Letterman did his homework and basically told Blagojevich that it appeared that he had his right to due process and chose not to exercise it.
The rest of them are more interested in the sizzle instead of the steak.
And wndycty @11:14 has it right: The laziness of the NY/D.C. media in covering L'Affaire Blago was astonishing. Was it really so difficult for the shows, even Rachel Maddow (whose interview was pretty good) and Keith Olbermann seemed unable to find Illinois-based reporters -- who might just know more about Prairie State politics than Jonathan Alter, Richard Wolfe, Eugene Robinson, Ana Marie Cox, etc. -- willing to be on national TV?
The overall shallowness of national coverage is Exhibit A (if you'll pardon THAT expression) as to why the blogosphere is ascendant.
I guess I am disappointed in anyone who let's their audience be manipulated, however, it was not just national media-right Don & Roma and Cliff Kelley? Don & Roma are actually proud of that whitewash Blago painted on their show
It is tempting to be a snot by saying that my impression hasn't permanently changed, but honestly, I believe my impression has been permanently changed.
I couldn't have imagined how more openly partisan the national media could have gotten after Kerry in 2004, but I was simply overwhelmed by the Obama lovefest in 2008. It was nauseating.
But still, I had some hope that 20% of national media coverage wasn't crap. I still hoped that we could read between the fluffy lines of bad journalism and find some truth between them. I had hoped that the people shoving openly biased information at me, actually did some kind of research beforehand. I had hoped that they were believers in what they pushed. I had hoped they had consciences.
After how Blagojevich was covered - I just don't see how the national media can ever be considered credible again. Talking heads spouted off without a shred of homework done. These people riffed about our former governor, as though they were journalistic Miles Davis' - compositions taking backseat to their vainglorious bloviating.
These "interviews" were about the talking heads, not about Blagojevich or the facts before them.
Even Letterman, not a journalist, focused on Blagojevich's criminal case, instead of the reasons he was impeached 59-0. Letterman mocked Blagojevich, but still allowed our Little Liar to spout out embarrassing stupidities.
Yes, permanently - changed for the worse.
Most of the programs Blago was on fall under the category of "News Entertainment" in much the same vein as professional wrestling is "Sports Entertainment."
That said, my impression of the national media has not changed, since I have always held that News Entertainment is the exact opposite of the journalism it purports to be.
Journalism is two-sided (at minimum) and is a service. The national media, at least as it pertains to Blago (and this QOTD), IMHO, is neither.
Do I think they did a good job? Nah. Do I think they did the best we could reasonably expect? Absolutely.
Imagine you're an anchor at CNN. You're trying to be "informed" on:
-- Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan
-- A growing global economic crisis
-- US Senate situations in New York, Minnesota and Illinois
-- A plane that crashes in the Hudson River
-- Your regular "run-of-the-mill" shootings, car chases, court dates, etc
-- Any number of other issues happening that day
-- AND the goings-on of one Rod Blagojevich.
It can't be done in-depth. It just can't. No one is an expert on everything. And if you want MORE depth, then you need more reporters, more cameramen, more producers, more people who can actually get and track down the news. BUT...you can't do that, because everyone is cutting budgets, not adding to them (and don't get me started on the arcane union rules that plague television).
We think national media, we think Walter Cronkite, or Peter Jennings, or whomever. Those were extraordinary men. There just aren't that many people who fit that bill, and there are a hell of a lot more TV channels out there than there once were. And, we have a lot more of the world to cover than we once did.
While we're on the subject, I don't exactly agree with Rich's position to not cooperate when producers for these shows call and ask for background information. I see his point, but I think it's bad form to refuse to give them information when they call, and then say 'these people don't know anything' after the fact. (that's a paraphrase, not a direct quote)
Now, I also think they should compensate you for your time, and if you don't ask for that, you should!
I'll tell you why I think you're wrong about this.
They never did much research on their own. Essentially, they wanted to short-cut through me. Since they wouldn't take the time to do their own research and had very few if any decent questions I decided not to waste my time on them. I told most of them to just spend some time going through the blog. They wanted me to do their work for free.
Not gonna happen.
As Concerned Observer says, they can't do everything in-depth. However, what they choose to do should be factual and honest.
The observation of the things that a CNN Anchor tries to stay informed on is too long. The National Media shouldn't really be covering shootings, car wrecks, fires etc. Too much of what passes as National News is really only a local or regional story that bled.
As big as some of these supposed news outlets are one would think that there would be better research going on in regards to the background of the stories like RRB's and others.
See, this is fair, to me. I understand it. I don't think I agree with the stance, but I understand it. And I'm not the one with 14 different reporters calling me.
Again, I think you should ask for compensation. If they bought a subscription...hey, it's $300 for a 10-minute phone call and pluggin' their name in the list. If they refuse that, the hell with them.
You mean, like Rod Blagojevich?
To my knowledge, Rod Blagojevich has not actually bled on national television yet.
train111
Watching all of that 'coverage' and comparing it with knowledge I had about the issue (most of it learned here), I wonder how I can believe they have any comprehensive knowledge about ANY issue. So I am now even more skeptical of what I see/here on the national stage---and it is a performance, not actual journalism.
As far as David Letterman, I started watching him in high school during his NBC days--even before the top ten list. So I was not surprised at all that he was able to deliver a quality, integral interview. As McCain learned last fall, that show is not just entertainment--some nights its not even funny. But it is always worth watching.
If your opinion of the national media has changed, you must have just started paying attention. How many pages of ink and TV minutes did the national media spend on Chandra Levy's disappearance back in 2001? I saw John King's show yesterday on CNN and he's asking his 3-person, all white "panel" of average Americans about Obama making "rookie mistakes." If you're hoping for anything to get done, you have to despair hearing that kind of spin on events wasting time in the national media.
The coverage of Blago by the national press simply cemented my perceptions in place due to a rampant inability to actually perform journalism.
For example, the national media seemed to accept and proliferate Blago's talking points without calling him out on his lies.
Just by reading the IL constitution, the House Articles of Impeachment, and the Senate's rules for the trial, any moderately capable person could have seen that Blago was full of it. But why do research when you can just quote Blago.
The story came off -mainly because Rod was the one doing all the talking- as if Rod was wronged in some way instead of what the actual story should have been...
"Guv misrepresents the impeachment process and confuses his constitutional rights in criminal court with the rights he is granted in an impeachment trial. Is RRB lying, ignorant, or both?"
Rod was just another sound bite for public information services that have become info conglomerates...
BTW, I only read the NYT and Washington Post, and watch WTTW in the Chicago region...the rest is dreck...
the primaries. not criticism, but blatant sexism. maybe they are just in love with pols from Illinois...."oh, look, an Illinois politician!"
Maybe they're not mainstream.
Regarding "pathological liars" --- most of the Washington establishment, politicians and media, lied us into the war with Iraq! What could be more pathological than that? Haven't held themselves accountable at all, either. All the war mongering pundits, commentators and reporters (Judith Miller, Fareed Zakaria, Jeffrey Goldberg, Charles Krauthammer, Andrew Sullivan, etc. etc.) still go on TV acting like they are experts. Always keep in mind the old saw that "The mills of God grind slowly but they grind exceeding fine," or you could despair, I guess.
My daughter is a 22 year old cancer patient and in a few years we won't be able to keep her on our health insurance. I can already see the national media gearing up to turn health reform into a political football again. They aren't going to be nailing Republican politicians to the carpet about allowing the status quo to stand so that someone like my daughter can never get health insurance due to a pre-existing condition. No, they let someone like McCain or Joe The Plumber babble about "socialism." The national media's idea of a "tough question" was going after Obama about not wearing a flag pin.
Ditto what Atsaves said about Letterman doing a better job than all so-called news people.
No it hasn't permanently affected my attitudes toward the news media. I don't expect them to deliver objective news because no one can. Everyone has a bias, gather enough sources and sift through the info and arrive at the truth that fits MY bias.
Rich - Hunter S. Thompson, in colorful language only he could write, made the same point about Richard Nixon during his presidency!
Rich Miller, you don't fit in with them at all. You tell the truth, and don't spoon feed us processed garbage. Capitol Fax is like a breath of fresh air.
Yes, the national coverage altered the way I see them forever. They have lost all credibility with me. They are lazy hacks. I'm sure they will read whatever is handed to them. The thought of them not preparing and thinking before presenting their material is scary. The fact that most people take what national media tells them and act like it is gospel truth is even scarier.
I am amazed at the number of people who have said things that I have challenged and their response is "No, I got that from FOX"! Or "It must be true, it was on CNN"
I agree with others here that Letterman was the toughest interviewer for Blagojevich. Not that I would like to see Letterman in a Meet the Press role, but his interviewing style certainly lends itself to the kind of acute observations and intelligent questions that is very rare in any kind of journalism, print/online or broadcast.
I used to be an avid reader of the Columbian Journalism Review, and used it as kind of barometer for critiquing the press. Haven't read it for a long time, or even know if it still publishes; but I have to believe today's quality of national journalism would make the editors of that magazine urp.
Maybe they’re not mainstream.
Perhaps Fox is - the rest are not. I don't think most people even heard of the NYPost. Rush may reach 20 million, but is only quoted in infamy, not credibility. The Wall Street Journal is considered a mainstream business newspaper. You don't hear Ellen quoting from the WSJ.
So claiming that mainstream media wasn't biased in favor of Obama because of the examples you gave is like claiming that coffee is a dairy product because some people use Coffee Mate.
WSJ is bedrock mainstream media -- business, government and politics -- with a 2 million circ. Another Murdoch property, the New York Post's 690,000 daily readers certainly have heard of it. And if Rush is not the most powerful person in the GOP, I'd like to know who is. Is the GOP not mainstream, as well?
Perhaps the mainstream media is not as monolithic as you assume. Life is generally more complex.
But you know, if Rush is looking for a sidekick, VMan, I can't think of anyone better for the job than you.
And who is Ellen?
Letterman got to see Rod on all of those other shows, first. He got to digest the information, wait and see how it played out in the legislature, and then interview him. He also has a good-sized staff that prepared all day for two guests that night, one of whom was a guy up for best supporting actor and whose IMDB profile was probably enough background.
Dave's interview was really a different sort of animal from the first 'rounds', if you will. Just important to keep that in mind.
Letterman is a tv funnyman, not a cast-in-marble champion of truth, justice and the 1st Amendment.
Their kid glove treatment of Blagojevich couldn't lower my opinion of the national media as it was at rock bottom before impeachment.
Anyway...yes, those other people have staffs, absolutely. But even though there are, say, 15 producers working on Good Morning America, it's a safe bet that only one or two of them can be tasked to any given story at a given time. They have another 40 minutes to fill.
Meanwhile, Dave can marshal more resources to the Blago interview (after all, it DID take up two-and-a-half segments) simply by using some of the jokes they didn't like as much the day before. So if HE has 15 people, let's say five of them are tasked to guest prep. They (and he) had an entire weekend to prepare, and had watched Blago stumble all over the place on other shows. They also had the tapes played at the impeachment trial (which others didn't have for obvious reasons)...he had more ammo, and he did a better job. I think those things are connected.
I also think there's a big difference between the national TV media and the national print media. There's no excuse for tripe like the National Journal piece Rich put up the other day. In the print media, you have time to do your fact-checking (especially if your article is published eight days after an event happens). Not checking it is just terrible.
If we haven't learned by now that Blagojevich is a charmer who knows how to spin everything back on message, we'll never learn it. That's why I give the one-on-one interviews a LOT of leeway. Diane Sawyer is good, but Rod is good too, and he can misdirect better than anyone. I'm not saying he got the best of Sawyer -- but he's able to stall, spin, and avoid answering. He's a Hall of Famer at that and very often comes up with a draw, if not a win. All he had to do was play for time, and he does that better than he does anything else (except comb his hair).
Even Dave pointed it out -- "in terms of filling time, you've been terrific."
I can't stand to watch the 24/7 news programs. I will, however, watch Rachel Maddow and Glen Beck because I thought they were dug more at Blago than any of the others (only slightly more). I was disappointed in Glen though when he said he would stand shoulder to shoulder with Blago if he were innocent. Geraldo is a joke. He researches squat and then acts like a high and mighty attorney who knows all the facts. NO ONE KNEW ALL THE FACTS. NO ONE BOTHERS TO EDUCATE THEMSELVES. Letterman came the closest.
Rich, I'm not surprised that some of them came calling on you. All they had to do was go through this blog and they would have found out everything they wanted to know. I do think though that taking time with either Glen or Rachel would have jumped you WAY up there on the national level - if that is your goal and IF they had given you the credit. You would have made an excellent guest on either of their shows.
Unfortunately the 24/7 news programs have become a monster that needs to be continuously fed. They have the resources, they have the manpower, they don't care to take the time to investigate. They're too busy climbing over each other to be the first for the next breaking story. And that folks is the sad state of journalism in the United States.
The talking heads are worse than the regular TV and print reporters because they have to fill 24 hours with about 8 stories, so they keep repeating the same s__t over and over, which probably actually causes some people to really believe them.
They are all completely out of their league when it comes to state and local. Many, if not most, of them should be embarrassed at how they handled the Illinois story.
As Concerned Observer says, they can’t do everything in-depth. However, what they choose to do should be factual and honest.
===================
Even though the direction has been obvious for a decade or so, what struck me the most was lack of reserve pertaining to the timing of release of "information".
You'd think that with a trial coming up, the media would have focused on simply reporting a few basic facts at this point, instead of jumping on the PR bandwagon.