As long as we are on the topic
Posted by Lance on 07 Jul 2007 at 11:24 pm | Tagged as: Media, Lance's Page
Of media laziness, incompetency, bias, or sheer mendacity, I suggest this, from Hot Air, on NBC’s misreporting on the body armor that our military uses. Of particular interest is that all the evidence that the military provided was ignored. They had it, but they didn’t use it.
I also suggest that this quote from a journalist published at Instapundit does explain a lot. Simple self interest, which drives much reporting:
A journalist whose name you’d recognize emails:
Yon’s story doesn’t get attention because it is humiliating.
It is humiliating because it is obvious that we media – and our allies in the state department, the legal trade, the NGOs, the Democratic Party, the UN, etc., - can’t do squat about such determined use of force.
Our words, images, arguments and skills can’t stop the killing. Only the rough soldiers and their guns can solve the problem, and we won’t admit that fact because the admission would weaken our influence and our claim to social status.
So we pretend Yon’s massacre – and the North Korean killing fields, the Arab treatment of women, the Arab hatred of Israel, etc. - doesn’t exist, and instead focus our emotions and attention on the somewhat-bad domestic things that we can ‘fix’ with our DC-based allies. Things such as Abu Ghraib, wiretapping, etc. When we ‘fix’ them, then we get status, applause, power, new jobs, ego, etc.
Please don’t be surprised. We media are an interest group not much different from the automakers, the unions, and the farmers.
The media gets power and prestige from fixing something. Thus every aspect of our lives are something for which the media must identify problems and drum up a solution for, and act as the “voice of the people.” Self interest explains a lot about many things, which is why the media should be given no more special privileges than anyone else. They are just people with their own interests and deserve no more protection from the government than any other part of our society. If they were viewed that way they might also be more attentive to the liberties of others, including our speech.
Technorati Tags: media, freedom, speech, special interests
8 Responses to “As long as we are on the topic”
Trackback URI | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed
Hey Lance,
According to your counter this appears to be your thousandth post. Congratulations guys! And good morning!
yours/
peter.
Wow!! That is a stunning admission, isn’t it?
Who knew that a journalist whose name I’d recognize finally had the courage to step up and admit such deception to Glen Reynolds in an email?
You know, I used to have great respect for a journalist whose name I’d recognize. I thought that a journalist whose name I’d recognize was an honest, objective reporter. I feel sad and betrayed by a journalist whose name I’d recognize. After all the times I stepped up and defended a journalist whose name I’d recognize, I definitely expected more from a journalist whose name I’d recognize.
Rest assured that I will never trust anything that a journalist whose name I’d recognize says anymore.
What a wanker.
So are you accusing Glenn Reynolds of lying?
Pogue,
I don’t care if he is lying. I used it as illustration, not as proof. The point is sound, even if the particular journalist exists or not. What I ask Pogue is, is the point valid? If so, then the quote should be unsurprising. It is not a new observation, about the press, or in a corollary, about our politicians. It is standard critique by libertarians of how activists, politicians and others grow the state. The man was making an observation, exactly why the thought requires naming the journalist I have no clue.
Now, if the source were making some unverifiable claim about a particular incident, and the particular incident were of importance rather than merely illustrative, I would take it with a grain of salt. Say that he claimed Tom Brokaw had said to him that he had purposely and knowingly distorted a story for such reasons. Then your complaint might have some force behind it. Mr. Brokaw deserves better than anonymous smears that we have no way of verifying. Claiming that self interest influences journalists bears no need for such scrutiny, nor do we have any reason to believe the journalist doesn’t exist, nor should we even find it unlikely. It in fact sounds like the kind of complaint I would hear from you about many groups. It is one of the traits I genuinely like about you, so why suspend it for journalists?
[Gasp]
Not necessarily.
What I’m saying is that it matters to me who admits something like that. It goes to the credibility of the statement especially seeing as how it is put up as a chide to the profession as a whole.
Did someone like Brokaw say it? Or perhaps Mike Wallace? Dianne Sawyer?
Was it someone like Bill O’Reilly? Or perhaps Sean Hannity? George Will?
Was it someone like Katrina Vanden Heuvel? Amy Goodman? Paul Krugman?
Don’t tell me that you would hold the same statement in the same light without regard to who said it.
I wouldn’t believe you.
In fact, it happens here on ASHC all of the time. Depending on who is saying what, one draws different conclusions. No?
And as Lance demonstrates,
He doesn’t really care if it is true or not. It already fits his preconceived notion that the media holds its own malicious self-interest above truth and context, which explains all the bad stuff you’ve been hearing coming out of Iraq for the past four years.
And he will use this stunning self-deprecating admission from “a journalist whose name you’d recognize” to push a narrative that the War in Iraq was a good idea, and it is going swimmingly according to journalists Yon and Roggio. And never mind all the bad stuff that the MSM pushes out there. It is obviously an attempt to destroy Bush and the Republicans.
That is the narrative pushed by the instapundit.
And censuring the media is an indoor sport for Reynolds. Which is exactly why a journalist whose name I’d recognize, would give Reynolds more ammunition to use against him and his kind. Right?
Right?
Because that makes soooo much sense.
Yeah…
I call Bullsh*t.
It’s either bullsh*t, or this journalist is a retard. One or the other.
So the point about self interest being a factor has no merit? Is this just journalists who are immune to this, or have you become convinced that your long time skepticism of people’s motives is now passe? Only a retard could feel that the longstanding need for power and prestige by those who need crises and problems (including the Bush administration) to justify their existence is at work in journalism? What a sweet notion Pogue. I prefer the bitter cussedness.
Or is it just Iraq coverage which is exempt? Then explain the story linked to. Explain how we see the same errors, and they almost always run one way, to things which they ostensibly can influence. I thought you would prefer that to the left wing bias explanation. Or, do we have a sacred caste, the noble journalist who alone deserves constant defense, even as they give little quarter themselves?
Your response seems to be missing my point, which is not about Iraq, though Reynolds did point out how it might apply via the e-mail. If it makes you feel better, assume its John Stossel, who has made the same point about the media in numerous ways and on various topics over and over again. So, pretending it is him, does that make a difference? I can’t see how. The sentiments have merit either way.
John Stossel! OF COURSE!! It makes perfect sense now. Why didn’t I think of that?
Stossel has made his redefined career out of chiding his contemporaries in order to cast better light on himself. And of course, to sell books to the anti-media faithful.
Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media
The scourge of the liberal media, huh? Congratulations.
I completely believe Reynolds now. It’s gotta be Stossel. I mean, the quote is perfect for him. As Stossel himself practically exists to “fix” stuff all of the time, regardless of context, fairness, and accuracy.
I’ll never forget the time Stossel tried to “fix” public perception that gas prices are higher than they’ve ever been. He did a great job of fixing my perception by comparing the price of a gallon of Ben&Jerry’s ice cream to a gallon of petrol bought at the same convenient store. The difference was astronomical. And I’ll certainly remember that context the next time I buy 30 gallons of Chunky Monkey. I’ll most definitely take that into consideration when I read about Ben&Jerry’s 10 billion dollar quarterly returns.
Okay, it was Haagen Dazs, not Ben&Jerry’s. My bad.
It’s just that I like Chunky Monkey and I’ve never actually bought haagen Dazs. I’ll have to redo the figuring and get back to you.
He was convincing, however, when he discussed media sensationalism about the gas prices being higher than ever by rightly accounting for inflation. Too bad he didn’t employ the same rightly figuring when discussing workers wages.
Stossel isn’t retarded. Though he reports on topics in hopes that his audience is.
But I digress.
Oh no, it has merit. And if your post had simply been about that, I probably would’ve kept my big trap shut. But it was your pulling Insty’s quote that bothered me.
You should see how, because according to the Instapundit, and others like him, the media reports atrocious acts of terrorism to hurt Bush and the Republicans – and the war effort. But if the media doesn’t report atrocious acts of terrorism, it is also designed to hurt Bush and the Republicans – and the war effort.
And in order to help him with his point, Insty pulls a quote from an email from “a journalist whose name you’d recognize”.
And the self-deprecating nature of the email, combined with the lack of sourcing, brings his email into suspect. Does it not? Think about it.
Reynolds tries to convey that the media doesn’t report acts of terrorism because if it did, it would help Bush. And to prove this, he conveniently has this email from a “journalist whose name you’d recognize”. How easy.
The source of the quote would carry great weight depending on who wrote it, right? Let’s say you’re right, let us say that the email came from John Stossel.
Stossel, the self proclaimed “Scourge of the Liberal Media”, makes his living on reporting the misdeeds of the media. So if the quote were to be credited to Stossel, it would diminish the credibility of the quote, especially as it is being used to bolster the claim that the media has it out for Bush.
One could rightly say, “Of course Stossel would say that. Isn’t he the guy billing himself as the ‘Scourge of the Liberal Media’?”
Reynolds would know this. So would Stossel. And that could very well be the motive for not sourcing the email.
I mean, Reynolds is not retarded. Though he hopes his audience is.
That is the nature of my skepticism. And I withhold it for no one.
I have great skepticism for most media outlets. They are what they are, flawed human beings holding their own interest as primary. Media companies are mostly private, for-profit entities subject to the same scrutiny as any other private, for-profit entity.
For me, I see generally two ways for a news media entity to be successful. They can either attract an audience by striving to be a trusted, unbiased source of information, or they can attract an audience by catering to the fundamental ideology of a particular group. And unfortunately, it is more often the latter.
I hold the same scrutiny to Keith Olbermann as I do to Sean Hannity.
I would argue that it is not me, but you that is the one being selective with your skepticism. Because Reynolds and others like him, push the narrative that you sometimes eat with a spoon. The Instapundit is in the Hall of Champions with his “It’s going better in Iraq than the media would like you to believe.” So you’ll forgive me if his email quoting “a journalist whose name you’d recognize” summons a little skepticism on my part. And again, not because the content of the email is being used to prove the point you are trying to make, but because it is being used by Reynolds to prove a point about the media’s lack of credibility in Iraq.
I suspect that if someone like Kos were to publish an email from “an Army General whose name you’d recognize” that proves a point counter to what you believe to be true, that the ringing of the alarm bells in your head would be deafening. And you would be clamoring for a name that would either confirm or dispel the validity of the statement.
But since the Instapundit carries the narrative that you believe to be true, you are the one abandoning all skepticism and treating the quote as though it were gospel.
Cheers.
It depends. If he were claiming something in particular, as opposed to an opinion, it would be of interest. If it were an opinion about some specific nature where expertise is a major factor, it might be of interest. If it is just a point along the lines of “the military often promotes based on factors that are unrelated to the ability to lead men during wartime, for bureaucratic reasons rather than strategic or tactical insight” I wouldn’t care at all, whether it comes from Kos or or Tigerhawk. I might be curious, I might like to know more about how many officers felt the war was being held down by career officers more adept at political maneuvering than war fighting. Thus I might wish I knew who he was. However, I wouldn’t be pissed that I didn’t know, or feel the opinion has no truth.
Now, if he claimed a particular general was widely despised with specific complaints about his decisions that are not publicly known, then yeah, he needs to come forward and provide a bit of proof. General observations about incentives however don’t require the opinion maker to come forward, even if I might like to hear more and therefore wish I knew who he (or she) was.
Heh, I thought Stossell would set you off. If it was Stossell (which I doubt) his own awareness of his incentives is pretty admirable, and as you show, they apply to him as well. No, I don’t think it matters whether it was him or not. I used Reynold’s quote because it fit a point I wanted to make, and you should link to the person who made the point if you have read it. More importantly, it is true. It does factor into the equation of how coverage in Iraq develops. Regardless of how the war plays out, whether the war is a good idea or not, that doesn’t make the coverage in any way acceptable.
Speaking of Reynolds, did you notice this little tidbit:
I happen to agree with that, so I got out my spoon and lapped it up. Seems like a guy giving people their due to me. Nor is he unfair to the media in general. He praises and criticizes. If he is tougher than you wish on them, making some of the comments you make about him are untrue and unfair as the quote above demonstrates. I have criticized the Times about a few things, and certainly the paper has proven no friend of the administration. I may be wrong, but I don’t think I or Reynolds has spent much time bashing their reporting from Iraq (AP or Reuters however are just plain awful) though maybe in some particular case I could be wrong about myself. In fact, I am quite sure I have praised or linked to the Times on several occasions on Iraq. John Burns has been damn good, even if I disagree about some things, who wouldn’t I do disagree with on occasion?
Even though I have no problem believing the brass balled Michael Ware laughed or was otherwise rude in a previous discussion, and I believe his actions show him to be a Bush hating partisan, neither then nor now do I think his reporting is bad, nor ever question his bravery, including in speaking out in favor of our continued presence.
Nor did I treat the quote as gospel. It is true, but I in no way claim it comes from divine sources. It is just true, in Iraq, and elsewhere. It is why the press loves campaign finance, self interest. So yeah, on this Glenn and I see eye to eye, and if you weren’t so caught up in fighting the war, you probably would have found it oh so compatible with your beliefs.
So frankly, despite my occasional gripes about the press (and they are occasional, check my archives) you can take your charges of sycophancy and stick them someplace uncomfortable. I can send you the appropriate diagrams if necessary;^)
Glenn and I see many things similarly, some things not. The same is true of many figures (say Joshua and you.) I don’t spend a lot of time putting up posts attacking you or Joshua just because I disagree. It has to go way beyond that to get my goat, and only in a particular case can I say it borders on disgust. So you won’t read me attacking Glenn, Joshua, Jon or McQ, or even directly referencing them when I disagree. My point will just be different than theirs and I will leave it at that. In comments we can debate (and I have had long ones with you, Joshua and McQ) but I won’t give in to some obsession to attack good people like Glenn or the rest of you just because on some things we have some disagreement.
Glenn happens to be hugely popular, and so some want to attack him for all kinds of faults that would be ignored on lesser lights such as myself. He links to people they despise or don’t feel know enough about the subject (as if a man who wanders across as wide a swath as he does could be an expert in all of them) and not enough (though some, he is pretty generous with disparate views) to those they want linked to (or themselves) and all kinds of dark thoughts and motives are attributed to him. It is silly. You disagree, but of all the major bloggers Glenn is one of the least worth despising, but his size makes him a target. I won’t join in.
Actually that is a bit of an exaggeration. Still, he is right. If I write a story about a boat I believe is going to sink, and fill it with exaggerations, only cover things which appear incompetent or bad in the behavior and actions of the designers, crew and passengers, that the ship sinks doesn’t make my reporting correct. Just as if in Iraq I saw and wrote of nothing but good, with buildings that were never opened portrayed as success, never reported on mistakes in strategy etc, etc., etc., and the insurgency dies down and we leave behind a stable, democratic society wouldn’t justify my own distortions. We are not getting a full or nuanced picture, not even close. That you may be right about the eventual outcome does not justify it no matter how many times you spill your bile at those who point it out.