CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Question of the day

Re: Question of the day

Anonymous — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:07:08 -0000

==================
As Concerned Observer says, they canâ€™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.

Re: Question of the day

ahem — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 19:55:56 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

steve schnorf — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 18:52:03 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Little Egypt — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 18:17:13 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

jake — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:52:15 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Concerned Observer — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:48:50 -0000

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."

Re: Question of the day

Independent — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:44:56 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Will — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:13:33 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

wordslinger — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:07:49 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Fed-up — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:06:00 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Concerned Observer — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:03:13 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

wordslinger — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:52:06 -0000

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?

Re: Question of the day

Vote Quimby! — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:44:33 -0000

Wow---a Hunter S Thompson reference. Been a few years since I witnessed one of those!

Re: Question of the day

VanillaMan — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:38:25 -0000

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 theyâ€™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.

Re: Question of the day

Captain Flume — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:36:55 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Say WHAT? — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:25:25 -0000

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"

Re: Question of the day

Anon — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:25:12 -0000

========= 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!

Re: Question of the day

cermak_rd — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:18:59 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Amy — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 14:45:53 -0000

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!

Re: Question of the day

Bill S. Preston, Esq. — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 14:43:35 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

wordslinger — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 14:38:26 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

Springfield Sceptic — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 14:35:04 -0000

He was the Executive Producer of 60 Minutes on CBS.

Re: Question of the day

Springfield Sceptic — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 14:34:16 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

carbon deforestation — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 14:13:31 -0000

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.

Re: Question of the day

One of the 35 — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 14:12:49 -0000

I thought Geraldo was a putz before the Blago events. Now I think he is an ultra putz.