The Word From Up on High

The question is, did the people at the forum actually buy what Halperin was selling? Why does anybody listen to this guy after his kiss up to Hugh Hewitt debasement?

Halperin is funnier than Imus. They should switch gigs.

So much for Harvard putting on such a forum. Too bad that they don't have the class that Rutgers, Coach Stringer and the Women that play varsity basketball have. Nothing like those old school ties.

Of course the true hallmark of a journalist a la Halperin is begging right wing ideologues like Hugh Hewitt to like them, see e.g.
http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/10/more-on-mark-halperins-sad-little.html
and
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/02/11/halperinsyndrome/
on what Greenwald rightly calls "Mark Halperin's sad little crusade for right-wing blessings".

Halperin generously allowed that "I don't mind if people blog -- but they should apply high standards of journalism,"

Just like Imus?

As if Fred Hiatt hadn't taught me already, now I'll be sure not to waste any more time writing Letters to the Editor.

Ouch!

Did you know, for instance, that the "New York Times regularly puts stories on its website that don't make it into the next day's paper"? Halperin suggested that this disparity stems from the online stories not living up to the printed edition's rigorous standards.

Jason Blair says hi.

btw, How would Halperin explain Jeff Gerth's motives in his bogus Whitewater coverage.

Gotta love Halperin's "journalistic standards". Make himself as much money as possible

" In 2005 (Halperin) quickly tacked right (that's when The Note became truly sycophantic) and scored a high-profile book deal to chronicle the political brilliance of Bush and Rove.

In other words, follow the money. Note this key quote from Halperin's recent appearance on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor. It pretty much lays bare the motivation behind the kowtowing:

'As an economic model, if you want to thrive like Fox News Channel -- [if] you want to have a future -- you better make sure conservatives find your product appealing.'

This is about moving product, not producing good journalism"

From Media Matters

Halperin is a Bush apologist and a complete joke. The only reason he is pissed at bloggers is they called him on his kow-towing to the right.

One issue with writing letters to the editor -- at least if you have a listed number -- is harassing phone calls. I had a letter published in the New York Times and I had to unplug my phone overnight for several days. It was just one rightwing nutjob, and in fairness he didn't threaten me physically or anything, but he kept calling and calling late at night.

I realize that pros like you, Ana, probably have to deal with this stuff all the time, but that's one reason why people might prefer to post anonymously. Also, of course, most of the time letters won't be published, especially one suspects if it's a criticism the newspaper doesn't want to hear.

Halperin wouldn't know good journalism if it smashed him upside his manure filled head with a Louisville Slugger.

He's that oblivious to how badly he's strayed from anything resembling integrity.

So in Halperin's world, Bush keeps Karl Rove around just to remind Bush of what he sincerely believes? Please. Everyone engages in political strategy, and Rove wouldn't be on the White House payroll if strategy weren't an important part of the agenda.

Personally, I'm sick of reporters telling us who they think is sincere (John McCain!!!) and who they think is a calculating panderer (Hillary!!!). If you tell us what the candidates say and do, people are perfectly capable of making up their own minds. Instead, what we get is a world where the press anoints a few candidates and trashes the rest, and their judgments are often flat wrong.

Ms. Cox:

Speaking of "on high" -- None of your colleagues here has commented on TIME's policy of effectively ignoring Attorneygate. You were commendably saucy in confronting Mr. Stengel. Could you solicit some comment from Messrs. Klein and Tumulty (we already know Carney's take)?

Who is Halperin to lecture anyone about having journalistic standards? This is a guy who has openly admitted that Drudge "rules his world" and gone on right-wing talk shows to grovel for acceptance. The guy is a joke.

Shockingly, "absurdly kowtowing to whoever happens to be in power" was not on the list.

Congratulations to Ana Marie for being aware that this is a problem, but not so much for failing to recognize that this generally only applies to the mainstream media when "whoever happens to be in power" are Republicans. I don't recall the media kowtowing to Clinton, unless "kowtowing" includes the constant promotion of fictional scandals and a confusingly obsessive focus on his penis.

"There were no audible gasps (rather, I don't think anyone heard me) and there was applause at the end."

An obnoxious Ivy League suck up getting a round of applause from an audience of obnoxious Ivy League would-be suck ups.

Now THERE'S a surprise.

This guy has got to be kidding. I've covered politicians on the local and state level; while they may get into public life initially with the public's best interest at heart, 9 times out of 10 they make decisions based on politics and their own personal (financial) interest, and not necessarily in that order. I beleive journalists' traditional cynicism is well justified!

just an edit comment, but I think the term is "dais" as opposed to "dias" though it pronounces that way.

This guy has got to be kidding. I've covered politicians on the local and state level; while they may get into public life initially with the public's best interest at heart, 9 times out of 10 they make decisions based on politics and their own personal (financial) interest, and not necessarily in that order. I can only imagine that it's worse on the national scene where there is more ego and more money in play. I beleive journalists' traditional cynicism is well justified!

One nit to pick: dais, not dias.

Sincerely yours,
A recovering copy editor

Bush is building a fence on the Mexican border because his buddies will make billions on the deal. Nope, no politics there.

could you ask for a better explanation of why the Note became such a pathetic little excercise in in-crowd backslapping?

These trenchant insights are examples of why Halperin got a "promotion," right?

Actually it's not pronounced that way either. It is spelled 'dais' and pronounced 'day-iss'.

So, if someone wants to start a blog, should he or she first get Halperin's OK? Or does the statement that he "doesn't mind" constitute a blanket approval?

I think Halperin should chair the next blogger ethics panel

' "Did you know, for instance, that the "New York Times regularly puts stories on its website that don't make it into the next day's paper"? '

that's pretty damn funny, considering that the overwhelming majority of the crap that Halperin wrote for "The Note" were not covered as stories for ABC News.

"Halperin generously allowed that "I don't mind if people blog -- but they should apply high standards of journalism,"

Just like Imus?"

Drudge, actually. the goto guy for news journalists, according to Halperin.

Paul--

It's also singularly stupid. There are no space limitations or deadlines online. So breaking news from AP may run before a NYT reporter covers it. And a story that might otherwise be spiked can run online where there is an unlimited amount of space.

I really don't understand why they find this blogging thing so hard to understand. I used to think they were just lying. But watching Joe Klein learn about blogging on the fly has been instructive. There really is some kind of Beltway Bubble.

Anonymous - You said: "I beleive journalists' traditional cynicism is well justified!"

I would rather that the journalist be skeptical than cynical. If everybody keeps saying how sincere John McCain is then I want the journalist to remain skeptical of that claim. A cynical journalist cannot be skeptical.

I agree with Steve on this one: "If you tell us what the candidates say and do, people are perfectly capable of making up their own minds."

Did Halperin mention whether high-standard website operator Matt Drudge still rules his world?

-

"the MSM does a disservice to its readers when they ascribe "only political motives" to politicians"

Take *that*, Gang of 500. Matt ::hearts:: Mark; Mark ::hearts:: Matt.

Write letters to the editor = eat cake.

Sorry, a little too meta for me. A reporter reporting on reporters talking about reporters and bloggers. Gosh that's just got to be news. All the while the "real news" is much less real. See why the MSM is so irrelevant?

Didn't think so.

Ana,
Did Halperin take questions? How do the "little people" get into events like this? Inquiring minds want to know. Guys like Halperin deserve to be called out on their BS. You know why bloggers ad hominem attack a guy like Halperin? It's because he wouldn't listen otherwise(I don't think he listens then ... someone probably tells him about the attack). It is very frustrating when journalists won't admit they messed up. Why do you think the blogosphere despises Judy Miller and Tim "Timmeh!!" Russert? They are a disgrace to their profession. They have a responsibility to the viewing public. They have crapped all over that responsibility. Why do you think the left rejoiced with so much glee at the Scooter Libby trial? Part of the reason is because Russert got exposed for the fraud he is.

Mark Halperin has always been an asshat. He is just pissy that now he is being called out for his egregious bullshit.

You did a thing at Harvard? I guess that means Joe Klein thinks you're an elitist (and probably an extremist). I hope you gave the sons of our meritocracy a thorough going-over.

Yeah, US journalism is great. Blogs are icky. I wonder what Halprin would make of this piece by Gary Kamiya in today's Salon:

****It's no secret that the period of time between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq represents one of the greatest collapses in the history of the American media. Every branch of the media failed, from daily newspapers, magazines and Web sites to television networks, cable channels and radio. I'm not going to go into chapter and verse about the media's specific failures, its credulousness about aluminum tubes and mushroom clouds and failure to make clear that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11 -- they're too well known to repeat. In any case, the real failing was not in any one area; it was across the board.

...Perhaps the press's most notable failure was its inability to determine just why this disastrous war was ever launched. Kristina Borjesson, author of "Feet to the Fire," a collection of interviews with 21 journalists about why the press collapsed, summed this up succinctly. "The thing that I found really profound was that there really was no consensus among this nation's top messengers about why we went to war," Borjesson told AlterNet. "[War is the] most extreme activity a nation can engage in, and if they weren't clear about it, that means the public wasn't necessarily clear about the real reasons. And I still don't think the American people are clear about it."***

http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/04/10/media_failure/print.html

Terrapin: I agree with the skepticism/cynicism distinction. I think we have far too much of the latter, and not enough of the former.

"He did lay into bloggers, who apparently sometimes "taint" their analysis by "engaging in ad hominem attacks." "

Holy crap, I actually agree with Halperin, well, as far as the trolls go at least.

"Did you know, for instance, that the "New York Times regularly puts stories on its website that don't make it into the next day's paper"? Halperin suggested that this disparity stems from the online stories not living up to the printed edition's rigorous standards."

Amazing...

Has this fell ever worked for a newspaper and somehow realized how limited the space is, not even counting the percentage that must be applied to advertising??? I thought he might have looked at these magical internets as a place of unlimited space where you can just click over to the next page of stories and read whatever the hell you want as opposed to what Rick the editor wants you to see...

Or this from Dan Radmacher of the Roanoke Times:

***Some reporters -- especially those covering the nation's capital -- are egotistical, lazy, complacent and addicted to their access to those in power, however little they use that access to actually benefit the public.

Many reporters also believe they've done their job if they simply quote both sides of an issue -- as if most issues only have two sides -- with no further effort to get at the truth of the matter.***

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/radmacher/wb/wb/xp-112246

Yeah, I have a feeling letters written to citizen-editor Rick Stengel are going to do a lot of good in solving our country's problems.

r o t f l m a o

Day-o, day-ay-ay-o
Daylight come and he wan' go home
Day, he say day, he say day, he say day, he say day, he say day-ay-ay-o
Daylight come and he wan' go home

Work all night on a drink a'rum
(Daylight come and he wan' go home)
Stack banana till thee morning come
(Daylight come and he wan' go home)

To whom should I write a letter to the editor complaining about Mr. Halperin's ideological bias and his obsequiousness towards racist blowhards in the right wing noise machine??

It's been noted before, but Halperin is a lot like "Lacombe, Lucien." That's the Louis Malle movie where a young idiot decides to join the Gestapo as the war is nearing its conclusion.

GEEZ, Ana! You should feel dirty being in the same room with Halperin. Who really, really gives a rat's patootie what that guy thinks. Journalistic standards? Huh? What in the deuce does this guy know about Journalistic standards?

Oh mercy! We finally know who Anna Nicole's baby's daddy is! LARRY!!!
Thank GOD! Now maybe we can move on to something else in the news!

Well, you have to remember, Matt Drudge rules his world.

Halperin bashing is lazy, a cheap shot (because he's not as off base as you make him seem) and arguably simply playing for applause in this forum which is kinda one of his points about bloggers.

Back in the day I was known to imbibe in certain pharmaceuticals for recreational purposes. But we never had anything like whatever Halperin is taking.

Here's another account of the same discussion:

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/04/10/media/permalink/ded1c49e9cfb3a223b3928dd5f4cd8c9.html

One highlight:

"[Halperin] seems to hate Kos but despises [Somerby] of the dailyhowler, as I discovered when I mentioned his name."

Halperin's attitude towards Somerby is pretty ironic. There is no one I've seen -- in the mainstream media or the blogosphere -- who researches and documents his case more carefully than Somerby. Since 1998, he's done what journalists should be doing. And Somerby, while a liberal, is quite willing to go after other people on his "side" (e.g. Joe Wilson) like a pit bull if he thinks that's where the facts lead him.

"Halperin bashing is lazy, a cheap shot (because he's not as off base as you make him seem)..."

All your base are belong to us.

Eric Boehlert on Halprin:

***The Note, committed to obediently reflecting the Beltway's chattering class, remains a central engine that drives conventional wisdom, which The Note clearly idolizes...

The simple truth is that with Halperin at the helm, The Note went all-in on the Bush White House. In January 2006, Halperin was so bowled over by President Bush's rhetorical flourish that he announced, "That is the kind of answer and vision that will get a man's approval rating back over 53% any day now." At the same time, The Note has often treated Democrats with open contempt, for instance, labeling former Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe a "Cliché-Meister." By falling so madly for Karl Rove, the smartest man in politics ("SMIP") who is "beloved and respected," Halperin and The Note became perfectly aligned with the Bush White House.***

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200704030007

Somerby pretends to document what he's doing but he's a hack. He's a perfectly fine blogger hack but he's not that great. He's also not the least bit funny though clearly funnier than Imus.

"Somerby ... he's a hack."

Even if that's so, he still manages to kick some beltway a**. One man and a Lexus Nexis account. What does that say about our so-called press? It's a disgrace.

Excellent. Please quote mediamatters and Eric Boehlert. They know a great deal about the issues they write about. It is safe to say that Mark Halperin has done exactly 483 million more interviews with people in politics than mediamatters and Boehlert have ever done. Sure they write things you like to read but people pay to listen to Jessica Simpson too-- she is no artist and Boehlert and mediamatters have no standing when it comes to the press. They have an ideological agenda and are unconcerned with trying to figure out what the facts of the case are. I'll take Halperin's too inside and too cute view over their completely uninformed view any day. If you like to hear their pretty tinklings and it makes you smile that's great but I think ultimately it will lead to frustration with the planet on which the rest of us are trying to figure out our own frustrating way.

Wait, are you actually grouping yourself in with the uncyncial bloggers who actually care about politics? Really? Can you be that unselfaware?

Wow.

Who cares what Halperin has to say. He has zero credibility and integrity, therefore he is utterly irrelevant.

"They have an ideological agenda and are unconcerned with trying to figure out what the facts of the case are."

What they have is an agenda unburdened by the cynical demands and groupthink of today's media. The record is plain. The press has been a joke.

As far as an agenda goes, a slant, etc. I think Glenn Greenwald did a good job addressing that recently. I will look for the link and post it when I find it.

If you really wanted to parse things and say there's an agenda, I would say even if there is one, the press we have today makes things easy, like shooting fish in a barrel. Agenda or no agenda, bloggers can fact check. Just look at the recent Pelosi Jet flap. It was a joke.

The press can be a stone cold joke and Eric Bohlert and Mediamatters can still be terrible. It is a big world full of lots of possibilities JJ. If you really cared about the press you'd want something more than those slobs. An anlogy! Just because Saddam Hussein was a bad man doesn't mean that George Bush is fabulous because he said Saddam Hussein is a bad man. When we belive hack thoughtless fools who don't do their homework and we let them tell us what we want to hear we end up confused and unhappy. Think for yourself. Oh and smile-- those guys are so self-serious and fussy. No one with any real brains can maintain Boehlert's constant narrow eyed look of constipation and stomach upset.

Joke is probably the wrong word because recent history here in the states has not been funny.

I don't read everything media matters does. And sometimes it does go overboard and stray into tea leaf reading territory. Still it can be a source of valuable information that's hard to find anywhere else. Where else could you read about the press desperately running away from the Plame investigation? Like Josh Marshall said recently, we still don't know what happened in the government during the runup to the war. You have to go far off the beaten path to find anything on that subject. That's sad.

Blogs can't do what the press can do, there's no question. But they're doing what our corporate, sensation-addicted, ADD, right-wing-press-release-consuming, press refuses to do. And they'll probably continue to do that, which is a service.
Probably they'll continue to do that to the point where the media landscape completely changes, which is why the establishment press is worried, and it should be.

I'm not saying there aren't things to worry about. Newsgathering for one thing. Blogs really aren't outfitted to do their own. But the press in recent history has been simply awful. And they deserve to have some upstarts clean their clocks for a while.

Ana:
A bit off point, but will you go back on Imus? I hope so.

"You have to go far off the beaten path to find anything on that subject."

Anything definitive, that is. (See the above where I mentioned the 21 reporter interviews.)

As often is the case, the comments here are the best part. Nonetheless, a nice, if far too respectful, piece, Anna.

Everytime Halperin opens that gaping hole filled with artificially whitened ivories to pontificate about politics he becomes a one-man exemplification of all that is wrong with the main stream, corporate media. If he wants shed light on the "problems present in modern political journalism," all he need do is bring a mirror. Too bad for Halperin that he got to be so in the tank that after his embarrassing and uncomfortably icky performances sucking up to the likes of minor league nutjob Hugh Hewitt that even his employers at the Note could no longer refrain from letting golden boy go. If ABC dumps you, you really have to be some sort of poisonous toad. What is Harvard thinking in presenting this deeply compromised individual as some sort of authority on the media when the only function he could serve is as a bad example.

I'm so glad he doesn't mind if we blog. How generous of him. Unanswered is the question "What is he going to do about it if he did?"

"hack thoughtless fools who don't do their homework"

You mean like Josh Marshall, without whom we wouldn't know about the US Attorneys? Or Media Matters, without whom we wouldn't know the backstory behind the Pelosi jet flap? It seems to me that while they don't replace the MSM, they're not trying to--they help it do what the MSM should have been doing in the first place. And there are lots of hacks. Everywhere.

Wow, no wonder Halperin was fired by a chickenshit outfit like ABC News.

How much lower has he got to sink?

I would sum Halperin up in a style that befits him -- given his love of obscure song lyrics:

He was a fine idea at the time
Now he's a brilliant mistake

Swamp Valet, you are so Joe Klein. (As an adjective or proper noun. Works either way.)

The old stenographer/courtier "journalists" are dead, but they haven't fallen over yet. The best informed people now get their information from the Blogosphere, not the access-corrupted tame geese of the "news" corportations. Josh Marshall broke the DoJ scandal story, and Firedog Lake blew away the MSM coverage of the Libby trial. Glenn Greenwald and Juan Cole completely outclass their "expert" competition in the MSM.

Your attempt to teach the flightless bird of Time Magazine to soar into the Blogosphere will likely end in a hard landing. Good luck in your next career.

Halperin is such a laughable tool. Like ANY MSM journalist should be lecturing bloggers on "standards" [of objectivity, I assume] after the relentlessly spineless and pathetic performance of pretty much ever major media outlet since 2000. At least in the political sphere. [With very, very few exceptions and none of them at Time.] "Asshat" is too kind a term for the propagandistic hack-work Halperin has inflicted on his viewers. Good riddance, Mark.

Write letters to the editor?

That's barely a step above the circular file. What a douche.

"hack thoughtless fools who don't do their homework"

You mean like Josh Marshall, without whom we wouldn't know about the US Attorneys?

No, you loon. I never mentioned Josh Marshall. Stop trying to change the subject. I was talking about mediamatters and Boehlert. Josh Marshall is a wonderful, thoughful, tough, wise person. Please learn the differnce between Boehlert and Marshall or we shall all be doomed quickly.

>>Swamp Valet, you are so Joe Klein. (As an adjective or proper noun. Works either way.)

This is your defense of Boehlert and Mediamatters? To call me names? You're um, making my case for me. They can't be defended on the merits.

Well, while Swamp Valet was busy calling me names, I found the Greenwald quote I was looking for:

****When Newsweek's Richard Wolffe recently criticized blogs while chatting amiably with his friend, the White House Press Secretary, and afterwards when he responded to criticisms of his commentary, Wolffe made exactly the same claim that Harris, in essence, makes in his reply here: namely, that media criticisms of journalists are "ideological" or "partisan" -- that what bloggers really want is for journalists to advance the bloggers' partisan agenda -- and those criticisms can and should therefore be dismissed, because that is not the role of journalists.

But that is not the principal criticism of journalists at all. It's a distortion of the media critiques made by most bloggers -- a total strawman.

In fact, virtually all media criticism is based on the exact opposite premise -- namely, that the problem is that journalists are partisan, because they now reflexively spout government claims and right-wing narratives and, worst of all, do so lazily (i.e, uncritically) and often with extreme factual inaccuracies.

For me, there is one fact that illustrates as vividly as possible the crux of the real problem with our political journalistic class. It is this, from USA Today in September 2003:

[[Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link

Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it's likely Saddam was involved.]]

Even six months after this country invaded Iraq, 70% of Americans continued to believe that Saddam helped personally plan the 9/11 attacks. That heinous fact, by itself, should have provoked a major crisis in political journalism -- a desperate effort to find out what went so fundamentally wrong. Yet it did nothing of the sort. Most of the energies of national journalists are devoted instead to defending how they operate and, most of all, condescendingly disparaging their critics as shrill partisans who don't understand the real role of journalists.****

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/03/30/harris_replies/index.html

As for Boehlert and Media Matters, as I said, Media Matters can overblow details. But I would disagree that Boehlert doesn't do valuable work. Same with David Brock. Brock's *Republican Noise Machine* reads like a screed. But it's indespensible if you want to know the backstory of why are national press has been brought so low.

i read everything, unless it's all caps, because i think i have to. MSM get the worst info, or bush-doctored leaks, or their paychecks are at stake so you just have to read everything and then be halfway thoughtful about it.

after that, it's time to act, instead of simply holing up like this. wish it were election day or there was a march somewhere.

Interesting, did anyone bother to ask Halperin about that story about antrax mailed to Tom Daschle coming from Iraq? It has been proven wrong and I haven't heard any clarifications or retractions from ABC and it has been 7 years now, quite long enough to rectify the situation I'm sure. Is this the rigorous journalistic integrity he speaks of?

The Arabs know the truth. They know AIPAC owns both parties. They're not fools. Over thirty years of US helping Israel kill Arabs, both parties up to their neck in it. The Arabs know the score.

Operative phrase of the entire post (and AMC's oerve-ettes):

"...pretending I know something about politics..."

Good job Ana. You commentary is growing on me. I admire the way you've been challenging media power players. Not many people in the media who are lower on the food chain do that. No offense.

>the "New York Times regularly puts stories on its website that don't make it into the next day's paper"? Halperin suggested that this disparity stems from the online stories not living up to the printed edition's rigorous standards.

Ms. Cox,
If you ever do meet Mr. Halperin, please ask him how this is not an ad hominem attack.

As far as I know, zeros and ones are much cheaper than newsprint.
Aside from the writings of ex-NYT reporters Ms. Miller and Mr. Blair, I believe most people see the NYT as a brand for accurracy, regardless of whether they scan their eyeballs over the dead-tree or electrons-on-a-computer screen version.

Ms. Cox,
I meant to add to this sentence:
>>As far as I know, zeros and ones are much cheaper than newsprint.

Therefore, a greater number of stories can go online. As long as they are on NYT's website, the Grey Lady backs 'em up as having as much "truthiness" as what filters into the newshole.

Good stuff by Barbara O'Brien on bloggers. "Why We're Not Parasites":

http://www.mahablog.com/2007/04/10/why-were-not-parasites/

JJ,

I did call you names but what other response could a person have? When a human produces piffle from loudly flapping buttocks a body is compelled to either call him a fool or call Ripley’s.

You make no real defense of Boehlert or Brock. You just assert they’re great. I’ll consider that argument won.

Now to the 70% figure. Is it the press’ job to present the facts or make sure that people when presented with the facts come to the right conclusion? Americans were presented with lots and lots and lots of articles and news reports that said there was no link between 9/11 and Saddam. Greenwald blames the press. You can make an argument the people should pay a little more attention. But it’s an argument, a discussion. It is not the open and shut case you and Greenwald suggest. That’s why you are intellectually dishonest. It’s open to debate. You can have your position, bring along your facts, make flamboyant puppet shows, but you can’t just assert something and claim it as truth.

Despite press reports, Americans persisted in this belief. Now that was a story. If the press were awake it would have reported that voters continued to maintain this posture despite all evidence to the contrary. And that’s just what they did. In September 2003—the very period Greenwald gets so excited about-- the Washington Post (perhaps you’ve heard of it) ran a story on that point on page 1. My gosh! They buried it. Groupthink! Cocktail parties. Karl Rove!

Did the press fail? Sure. Was it the open and shut case you and Boehlert and Greenwald suggest? No. And the fact that you don’t see shades to the argument is what makes no one who thinks for themselves or people in the press listen to those of you who over-reach. You give yourselves away. You pronounce loudly: do not listen to me.

From above: 'Said Halperin, "I guarantee you most of these politicians take these positions because they believe it's for the good of the country."'

How nice. A guarantee. From Mark Halperin, no less. Now THAT is reporting.

Or not.

In Joe Klein's post from last week about how he was SURE about General Petraeus's actions (without Joe actually calling anybody to check what he was so sure of), he got reamed for this kind of VOUCHING.

Nobody really gives a shoot how personally confident Joe Klein or Mark Halperin or Wolf Blitzer or Andrea Mitchell are about the scruples or the intentions or the character of the people they are supposed to be REPORTING about. Just try to go into any courtroom and testify, "Oh, I'm SURE Mr. X didn't do it, because he's too scrupulous, or I just feel he didn't..." The judge and the attorneys will box your ears in. Because nobody cares what you think or feel or how much you personally trust people. It's not fact.

In fact, it's the height of arrogance to even presume that any of us care. Everybody's entitled to their opinion, including reporters, and I'm curious about those opinions, but, please, don't tell me that you're SURE of something as if your voucher is good enough to end the matter. It's not. It's smug, arrogant, condescending, elitist, non-factual, and it's not journalism.

That's quite a lot from somebody, Mark Halperin, lecturing a conference about the problems in journalism.

>>It's not. It's smug, arrogant, condescending, elitist, non-factual, and it's not journalism.

You have hangups. "Sure" is a single word. It can't produce those emotions in you unless you have issues. Therapy is expensive but pay for it. Don't give us a tissue parade here.

"You make no real defense of Boehlert or Brock. You just assert they’re great. I’ll consider that argument won."

You may, of course, consider "the argument" anything you like but you have not, in fact, made an argument. You have made an assertion:

"They have an ideological agenda and are unconcerned with trying to figure out what the facts of the case are."

For which you have offered exactly zero support.

"Americans were presented with lots and lots and lots of articles and news reports that said there was no link between 9/11 and Saddam. Greenwald blames the press."

This statement, besides not being correct, misses the point entirely. Greenwald, Boehlert and many others have made the very well documented point that much of the prominent reporting on Iraq specifically elided details and the reasonable skepticism that one would expect from an even basic level of journalistic responsibility. Neither, despite your wild aspersions to the contrary, would argue that there has been no good journalism in this period. Rather they have argued that a great deal of journalism has been extraordinarily bad. Bad to the point that should not even be countenanced in a Democratic society. I happen to agree with them but more than that I think they, particularly Somerby, have truly done yeoman's work in documenting just what so much of the press has been doing. Their meticulous and heavily cited work stands against your completely undocumented and unsupported assertions of inaccuracy and ideological bias.

Halperin is not too bright. Most people who have half a brain in their head (which Halperin does not) see him for what he is: a moronic Bush zombie, willing to repeat stupidly everything that comes out of the WH.

Why has this pathetic idiot not been tarred and feathered out of Washington? Is it because the Beltway Press is protecting its own? No wonder no one with an IQ above 100 believes a word of what the MSM is writing...

On the 70% figure, this is from the study:

****The extent of Americans’ misperceptions vary significantly depending on their source of news. Those who receive most of their news from Fox News are more likely than average to have misperceptions. Those who receive most of their news from NPR or PBS are less likely to have misperceptions. These variations cannot simply be explained as a result of differences in the demographic characteristics of each audience, because these variations can also be found when
comparing the demographic subgroups of each audience.****

http://www.americanassembler.com/issues/media/docs/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf#page=14

The subjects' chance of having misperceptions about the Iraq war is directly related to the news source they consumed for their news. I would say that the closer their news source was to the echo chamber, the more chance that they would have a misperception (for instance, that there was a link between 9/11 and Saddam).

I'm not going to reinvent the wheel and repeat here all of the behind-the-scenes material that I learned from reading Brock's *Right Wing Noise Machine* (about the Scaife Foundation, the evolution of TV punditry forums like the McGlauchlin Group, the right's well-funded career pundit track, the history of media bias claims, changing media ownership, changes in television news format, changes in newsroom staffing, etc.) Brock is not a "great" writer, as I said above, but he does give some valuable information that would be hard to come by otherwise. The same goes for Boehlert. I think many people have been trying to figure out how the right's media echo chamber works. Brock and Boehlert have done valuable work in documenting that. Al Gore and Bill Moyers have given speeches about it (Here's Al Gore: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8D2IU703&show_article=1 ) but Brock and Boehlert have done very valuable research and reporting on it.

But I just linked to an Al Gore speech, so maybe I am a loon. After all, Gore claimed to invent the Internet, inspired Love Story, discovered Love Canal, and he's spreading the word about climate change despite his breathing out CO2 and using electricity.

>>"They have an ideological agenda and are unconcerned with trying to figure out what the facts of the case are."
For which you have offered exactly zero support.

If we must argue about whether they are non-ideological fact finders then we must also get other basic facts right: what color is the green grass in your world? How much have either studied the press organizations they cover? Talked to the reporters they deride? They have done neither. Bush doesn’t go hunting for facts either. He’s very sure of himself. It’s easier that way.
It’s hard to report and call people you’re trashing and actually learn about the news business. It tends to challenge your assumptions. Things tend to get complex quickly. It’s much easier to just write whatever little things bubble up in your brain.

>>"Americans were presented with lots and lots and lots of articles and news reports that said there was no link between 9/11 and Saddam. Greenwald blames the press."
This statement, besides not being correct, misses the point entirely.

It’s not incorrect. Find someone with a Nexis account.

>> Greenwald, Boehlert and many others have made the very well documented point that much of the prominent reporting on Iraq specifically elided details and the reasonable skepticism that one would expect from an even basic level of journalistic responsibility.

Not the point. We were talking about the 70 percent figure. Catch up.

>>Neither, despite your wild aspersions to the contrary, would argue that there has been no good journalism in this period.

This is irrelevant. I never claimed they said there has been no good journalism. This is a fantasy on your part. Get better fantasies.

>>Rather they have argued that a great deal of journalism has been extraordinarily bad.
Yes it has been but a) not for the reasons they say and b) they know next to nothing about the news business so while we all can say the Redskins suck I’ll choose to listen to someone who knows the game (and has maybe played it) to tell me why. Sports radio only takes you so far.
Bad to the point that should not even be countenanced in a Democratic society.

What does this mean? Countenanced in a Democratic society? Did you read this on a pamphlet at the bus station handed out by the guy with the mismatched socks?

>>Their meticulous and heavily cited work stands against your completely undocumented and unsupported assertions of inaccuracy and ideological bias.

Anyone can fill pages of citations and heavily cited by whom? Other people that agreed with them before they started talking. That doesn’t impress me.

Bob Somerby is a former reporter, so you can't use that excuse for him:

***Years before he began his career as a topical humorist, Bob Somerby, editor of THE DAILY HOWLER, was an op-ed writer in the Baltimore Sun, writing on a variety of political and social issues.

After graduating from Harvard in 1969, Somerby came to Baltimore as a fifth grade teacher in the Baltimore City Public Schools. His first articles in The Sun, in 1978, dealt with issues of educational testing.

He has consulted for a variety of network news shows on issues of educational testing. He has written articles for the Sun on issues ranging from the outrageous treatment of poor Nancy Kerrigan right on through Medicare funding.***

http://www.dailyhowler.com/editors_about.shtml

Eric Boehler "worked for five years as a senior writer for Salon.com, where he wrote extensively about media and politics. Prior to that, he worked as a contributing editor for Rolling Stone."

http://mediamatters.org/about_us/staff_advisors

>>op-ed writer

not a reporter.

Nancy Kerrigan? Was that in this decade?

Boehlert was a critic for Salon and Rollilng stone. Neither of those facts suggest he did any actual reporting and they're off point anyway. He could have spent a life making flower designs for the Marriot by the off-ramp and it wouldn't matter if he did a little real reporting and intellectual examination today.

This is depressing.

I don't think anyone is dismissing the value of reporting. This is what this whole thread has been about (read what I wrote above). My point was that none of these guys walked out of left field. Brock had experience working in the right media. Further, they have been right many times when members of the media have been dead wrong.

And as you saw above, Greenwald had every right to cite that study. It has everything to do with the quality of the media that the survey participants consumed. Had you read the study before you reflexively slammed him on it?

Next, are you going to go after me for not being a reporter?

Swamp,

"It’s not incorrect. Find someone with a Nexis account."

If it is correct, you should be able to very easily cite evidence to the contrary. As with everything else you have written this evening, you have conspicuously decided not to do so. What you would find if you were to actually try and demonstrate the truth of your claim is that there were some(and certainly not lots and lots and lots, by any stretch of the imagination) press reports that argued that there was reason for skepticism about the claim that there was some connection between Saddam and 9/11 but this is of course not the same thing as flatly stating that the claim of a connection was flatly incorrect. It is certainly arguable that it may not be necessarily appropriate for them to do so, but that is why your statement is incorrect.

"How much have either studied the press organizations they cover? Talked to the reporters they deride? They have done neither."

Of course they have done both and you are incorrect once again. The more important point, however, is that what they have done most extensively is analyze the press with the most relevant text that any of us have, their (the press's) own words.

"If we must argue about whether they are non-ideological fact finders then we must also get other basic facts right: what color is the green grass in your world?"

In my world, suggesting that a writer or any individual is uninterested in the truth should be followed by some evidence of said disinterest. This would mean, also in my world, quoting something they have stated or posted which demonstrated that they lacked said interest. But of course, I realize at this point that we do live in different worlds.

">> Greenwald, Boehlert and many others have made the very well documented point that much of the prominent reporting on Iraq specifically elided details and the reasonable skepticism that one would expect from an even basic level of journalistic responsibility.

Not the point. We were talking about the 70 percent figure. Catch up."

I suppose the fact that you are somehow unable to see the relevance of bad reporting to the 70% figure could shed some light on your particular brand of obtuseness. But I suspect it is more likely that you were just grasping around some way to be snide and dismissive. You have, of course, impressed noone.

">>Neither, despite your wild aspersions to the contrary, would argue that there has been no good journalism in this period.

This is irrelevant. I never claimed they said there has been no good journalism. This is a fantasy on your part. Get better fantasies."

You made the argument that Glenn blames the press and countered his position with the argument that there were reports in the press that did counter the claim of a connection. This is only relevant if Glenn somehow premises his argument on the idea that there were no such reports. In fact he does not rely on such a premise which is what I pointed out to you.

"What does this mean? Countenanced in a Democratic society? Did you read this on a pamphlet at the bus station handed out by the guy with the mismatched socks?"

Your poor joke aside, my point was rather simple and I think quite evident to most sentient beings. Reporting that is as consistently bad as much of the reporting on important issues has been, especially in our recent history, should not be acceptable in a society that values democratic values. Journalism that consistently misleads the public on matters of importance is unhealthy to the project of informing said public. It appears that that concept is somehow difficult for you to absorb, but I feel quite comfortable that it is not especially complex.

"Anyone can fill pages of citations and heavily cited by whom? Other people that agreed with them before they started talking. That doesn’t impress me."

Whether or not it impresses you, the point is that Boehlert, Brock and Greenwald all make a point of extensively and accurately documenting their analysis and arguments. You, in very stark contrast, do not.

Brent,

You are tedious and not helping Boehlert or Brock and you use a lot of cliches which makes your posting hurt my eyes. I prefer JJ's posts. Please confer with him.

"You are tedious and not helping Boehlert or Brock and you use a lot of cliches which makes your posting hurt my eyes. I prefer JJ's posts. Please confer with him."

This just about perfectly sums up the thoughtfulness of your correspondence on this topic - unsupported assertions on top of a poorly constructed insult. I think you have demonstrated for us all very clearly how seriously we ought to take your points from now on.

One more thing, Swamp. You are right to stress the value of shoeleather reporting. We need more of that than we get from corporate media. Traditional media normally has more capability than bloggers on that. And probably experience in traditional reporting makes someone a better blogger.

But in addition to shoeleather reporting, there is research. And on that count, the best blogs have held their own. This is from the Salon article I referred to above:

***Time and again, in the run-up to war and during its early phase, I was amazed at the difference between the clear-eyed analysis to be found in books, and the mushy centrist pap that dominated the papers and TV. It was a kind of surreal battle of books vs. the mass media -- and books won hands down.***

http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2007/04/10/media_failure/print.html

It seems like over the past few years every time I learned something really interesting from a book that I couldn't get from the media, I found out that at some point Kevin Drum had already been there. I bet that reporter that Kamiya mentions, Kristina Borjesson, would have something to say about this...

Since I can't comment on your TIME article about Imus, I'll do it here. Ms. Cox, before you wax all wonderful over the Rutgers volleyball team, as you did on Scarborough, I direct your attention to a column written by Jason Whitlock, columnist for the Kansas City Star:
http://www.kansascity.com/182/story/66339.html
Whitlock was on Tucker's show calling Sharpton and Jackson terrorists who dont represent the black community. He said they dont belong in the Rutgers volleyball locker room. He said they should be down in Duke apologizing for ruining student lives there a year ago. He said they talk like this is the 60s when it's 2007. His article describes how he was ashamed, as a black man, to listen to the Rutgers press conference. READ IT.

And Michael Meyers has it right as well. [President and Executive Director of the New York Civil Rights Coalition (NYCRC)]
He said on Tucker's show that what MSNBC and CBS did was an act of "intellectual cowardice" for not standing up for free speech, and he called what the advertisers did an act of "economic cowardice."

Halperin has confused obsequiousness with critical thinking.

What has he ever done to convince the powers that be at TIME that he is anything more than a supplicant to power?

كورة
الاخبار الرياضية
منتديات
برشلونة
ريال مدريد
ارسنال
تشيلسي
انتر ميلان
مانشستر يونايتد
الميلان
يوفنتوس
روما
ليفربول
الهلال
النصر
الاتحاد
الاهلي
الشباب
رياضة
اشبيلية
بايرن ميونخ
فالنسيا
الوحدة
الاتفاق
نجران
الحزم
القادسية
الوطني
البث المباشر
الجزيرة الوثائقية
قناة الاخبارية
قناة الرسالة
الجزيرة الرياضية 2
الجزيرة الرياضية 1
شوتايم
قناة عين
قناة الكاس
دبي الرياضية
صور رياضية
ريكاردو كاكا
فرانك ريبري
رافائيل ماركيز
توتي
ماركو ماتيراتزي
فرناندو توريس
فرناندو غاغو
اندريا بيرلو
فابيو كانافارو
ستيفن جيرارد
خافيير زانيتي
سيرجيو راموس
ادوين فان در سار
صامويل ايتو
ديكو
سالومون كالو
ديفيد فيلا
رود فان نستلروي
دافيد تريزيغيه
ديفيد بيكهام
رونالدينيو
كرستيانو رونالدو
سيسك فابريغاس
روبرتو كارلوس
كارلوس تيفيز
ريو فرديناند
كارلو كوديتشيني
ريكاردو كواريسما
كارلوس بويول
جينارو غاتوزو
باولو
ارين روبين
اليساندرو نيستا
باولو مالديني
اليساندرو دل بييرو
جيلاردينيو
ادريانو
مايكل أوين
سامي الجابر
مالك معاذ
سعد الحارثي
لوكا توني
محمد نور
ليونيل ميسي
ياسر القحطاني
فرانك لامبارد
اكسافي اكزافي
تييري هنري
خوان رومان ريكيلمي
توماس روسيكي
خافيير سافيولا
فيكتور فالديس
ايكر كاسياس
زين الدين زيدان
هرنان كريسبو
زالاتان ابراهيموفتش
فيديو رياضي
اهداف الاتحاد
اهداف الهلال
اهداف النصر
اهداف الاهلي
اهداف الاتفاق
اهداف الشباب
اهداف عالمية
مهارات
برنامج صدى الملاعب
منصور البلوي
صالح القرني
حمزة ادريس
محمد الشلهوب
مارسيلو تفاريس
طارق التايب
يوسف الثنيان
نواف التمياط
مهارات سعد الحارثي
ماجد عبدالله
فهد الهريفي
حسين عبدالغني
عبده عطيف
باتو
دروقبا
بالاك
تحميل يوتيوب
برامج فوتوشوب
خطوط فوتوشوب
فرش فوتوشوب
ستايلات فوتوشوب
أشكال فوتوشوب
باترون فوتوشوب
دروس فوتوشوب
خطوط فوتوشوب عربية
خطوط فوتوشوب انجليزية
العاب رياضية
العاب كرة القدم
فيفا 2008
تردد القنوات الرياضية
ثيمات رياضية
بكين 2008
الكرة السعودية
الكرة الخليجية
الكرة العربية
الكرة العالمية
الكالشيو الإيطالي
الليغا الأسباني
البريميرليغ الإنجليزي
السيارات
PlayStation
منتدى البلاي ستيشن
X Box منتدى اكس بوكس
الجزيرة الرياضية
art الرياضية
الكمبيوتر والاتصالات
سنوات الضياع
محمد الدعيع
العربي الكويتي
الاهلي الاماراتي
الريان القطري
كاس العالم 2010
الاهلي المصري
حسنى عبدربه
الكرامة السوري
ليون الفرنسي
الانتقالات الصيفية
بلاتر
الدوري الالماني
الدوري الاسباني
مورينهو
الروسونيري
سكولاري
اخبار الليغا الأسبانية
صور برشلونة
راؤؤل
الدوري الانجليزي
صور مشاهير
اهداف زيدان
الزمالك المصري
مواقع السيارات
اسعار السيارات
صور سيارات
الهلال السوداني
نادي جالكسي
الدوري السعودي
كاظمة الكويتي
اسرار البلاستيشن
الماسترليغ
اسرار حرامي السيارات
طريقة تشغيل الايف اكس بوكس
مشاكل الاكس بوكس
اسرار شريط قراند
لعبة فيفا
برنامج مشاهدة القنوات
موقع الجزيرة الرياضية
افلام سكس
حصن المسلم
نسب النبي
المحقق كونان
برامج الجيل الثالث
مشاري العفاسي
احمد العجمي
نك نيمات

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73

برامج
برامج دينية
برامج الكمبيوتر
برامج الانترنت
برامج التصفح
برامج التحميل
برامج الحماية
برامج الملتميديا
برامج التحويل
برامج نوكيا
ثيمات نوكيا
العاب نوكيا
برامج الصور والتصميم
ماسنجر 8
يوتيوب
العاب فلاش
العاب بنات
العاب ذكاء
العاب اكشن
العاب اطفال
العاب التشويق
العاب سيارات
العاب رياضية
العاب ورق
العاب عربية
العاب حربية
العاب منوعة
العاب تلبيس
العاب باربي
العاب ترتيب الغرف
العاب طبخ
توبيكات
توبيكات اسلامية
توبيكات مضحكة
توبيكات انجليزية
توبيكات حزينة
توبيكات اغاني
توبيكات رومانسية
توبيكات شعر
sitemap
sitemap
sitemap
فيديو يوتيوب
مسلسلات
كارتون
مقاطع مضحكة
شاعر المليون
مسلسل غشمشم 3
باب الحارة الجزء الثالث 3
مسلسلات رمضان 2009
تفحيط
شاتشات
منتدياتدردشة