Sarah 'Barracuda' Palin and the Piranhas of the Press

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Media bias and their lack of interest in reporting over cheerleading and obfuscation is my issue;

To be fair you should state what media outlets are failing in your opinion instead of generalizing them as a whole.

Good luck with that, Olivia.

Considering what you consider to be "objective" sources, Battyman, you have a nerve to interject as tho you have sme superior position about this issue.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Sofiyya

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I learn something new about you every time. I agree investigative journalism is in decline as well as many others who are senior to me in their career fields have said in guest lectures as well as they have also said the same as you in that Watergate is the reason they became investigative journalist.

Many of my friends who are still journalists came to it for the same reason, but most of us, including myself were heading that way before Watergate. It just became the cool thing to do after that Another inspiration for woud be journalists was the the Vietnam war.

Advertising and PR are a different creature from Journalism but in the same family as of Media. PR as you well know is considered the dark side of Journalism. Which reminds me of something related to this last campaign I should touch on but I'll come back to it. I get your point but my point on Palin was one I felt you missed in my original statement which is ---> there are more important issues going on right now in the media ---> with the current administration ---> having to deal with the past administration ---> which is all tied together ---> because of some of the same player still being involved in various branches of the government currently. Obama said he would root out the corruption and he's not. Which agrees with your theory on the liberalized media somewhat because no one is asking the hard ball questions of why isn't he being held to his promises and why is he aligning himself more and more with Bush policies?

I suppose I wasn't clear. In addition to investigative journalism, I was also a political PR rep and speechwriter. My family was in advertising, but my interest in that was shortlived. Ironically, I was a journalist during my liberal years, primarily covering stories on the abuse of Native Americans by states and the federal government in the areas of health care, land allotments, trust funds, environmentalism, and so on. I do get your point about larger issues in the media, but the treatment of Palin, conservatives in contrast to liberals, and the motivations behind it is no small matter in an institution so quick to protect itself via the First Amendment.

Again it's up to the individual to inform themselves and discriminate what is a bias media outlet and what isn't. Perhaps the majority of Western media is liberal but that's not all the media. And because of advertising dollars and the new multi-media platforms with various ways to bring information to people, dvr's, t-vo, interactive advertising, webisodes, ect...the model is changing and in a state of fluctuation. All the professors and teachers of todays journalism schools can hope they instill the traditional values of Edward R. Murrow but ones in the real world in a production room it an unstable ball of wax were no one in the industry knows where their feet are going to land.

I agree that the individual has a role, but liberalism is the norm in the media world, and that is the message that is widely projected. We also agree that the model is in flux, very much so. However, shrinking revenue hasn't motivated most tv network or print outlets to put their paradigms up for examination. CNN is a perfect example of this, ie, when covering the Tea Parties on April 15, their reporting was not only extremely biased, but it was vitriolic. One reporter, a known leftist named Susan Roesgen, verbally attacked a protester on the air, then she and the anchor of the live segment, Kyra Phillips, implied that the protests were "anti-CNN. Anderson Cooper, who probably wouldn't have his job if he wasn't a member of the Lucky Sperm Club (his mother: Gloria Vanderbilt, socialite, artiste, and heir to the Vanderbit fortune; father: writer Wyatt Emory Cooper) handled the subject with unprofessional humor, making jokes and caling the participants "teabaggers".

I won't even mention what went on at MSNBC. All in all, the coverage was embarrassing for anyone with a classical education in journalism, but it says even more about what how social norms are perceived by an established network like CNN wen they believe that it's fine and dandy to not only dismiss but openly diss a segment of the populace as buffoons for merely exercising their right to disagree with the establishment. This is an example of why I worry about our protections, checks and balances and our democracy in the face of institutionalized mockery and arrogance.

And they wonder why their ratings are sagging badly.

The Christian Science Monitor known for it's more objective superior world news magazine announced last year due to budget that it would no longer be publishing their magazines and planned to dedicate all it's material to going online in hope to transfer subscribership over, reduce cost, and preserve it's many news bureaus around the world.

I heard about that. CSM has been an excellent source for overall objectivity in reporting. Unfortunately, readership of print media is declining in nearly areas because people don't read like they used to. I subscribe to CSM and many other publications that I used to get for free or at a subsidized rate provided to academics. Several of them have moved to net only or raised their rates in the face of drooping revenues. People's habits are changing, and media has to deal with it in survival mode, but tv reporting has no such excuse. They're just being stupid.

Another obvious way to see that not all the media is liberalized is by going outside the United States beyond the captured audience that we are and having an opportunity to be exposed to other medias and other view points such as Al Jazeera English. While it's not currently permitted to broadcast in the United States it can be accessed on the web if one seeks it. Which brings me back to the new media which we've been learning about since you've been out of undergrad school.

For the purpose of this thread, I am speaking about the western press, although we agree also that liberalism is not the predominant message in the entire world press. BTW, while Al Jazeera English is not barred from broadcasting in the US, (it has bureaus in the US and is broadcast in a few tiny US markets) few providers will distribute it. Odd, because Al Jazeera in Arabic is readily available. We have it at home and at work.

The internet is a vast and wide open sewer with hardly any laws or regulations to govern it besides some copyright laws which are being pursued and a few cases on defamation and written word which are appearing in the courts. In the last election we were following it in class and learning about it as it was being called the first internet election. The battle ground was new. Independent people were taking it upon themselves to mimic authentic news sites and create bogus news in order to damage opponents, which was then reported on by genuine news outlets who should have fact checked further but with so much of the attention on the general election captivating audiences the pressure to put information out there first was higher. Which lead other news organizations to take those news sources as trusted sources even with attributions feeding off of each other. Like the article also mentioned we saw bloggers doing their version of the news, such as a conservative female blogger you may well recall whose name must not be mentioned in the mena forum ever again, had niche audiences following this. Attention by the media was being given to what these clearly bias outlets had to say and while they are practicing their First Amendment rights they are not held to the same standard and ethical responsibilty that is being upheld to more serious news journalists and outlets.

It became a tangled web of deceptions from all sides of the playing field. The political parties on both sides of the fence had their PR people out there on public message boards just like this one creating news and misinformation to sway the opinion of the people focusing more on the horse race then on the real issues. Even advertisers would tell you the market is fragmenting into niche's and that was crystallized in the 1990's as the original post refers to. What they saw then was that audiences were more interested in the drama of the OJ Simpson trial and the Nancy Kerrigan and Tanya Harding stories and Amy Fisher stories then world issues being presented on the nightly news casts. The decline has been going on for awhile. IMO if there were still investigative journalists such as Woodward and Bernstein would Bush Jr.'s administration really have gotten away with their abuses of their executive powers? And wouldn't there be calls to action such as Walter Cronkite did for the CBS evening news when the Watergate story broke in the Washington Post? Are the investigative journalists still out there trying to wade through the waste of the open sewer and excessive information overload becoming bogged down by the misinformation in their path?

You spoke the truth there, although I wouldn't call the blogger who shall not be named "conservative". Nutjob is a better description, imo. However, the problem is that news becomng more like blogging, more like advertising, and more like entertainment is an abdication of their duty to report and check the government. How long can they continue to claim rights under the First Amendment when they are willing to let the First Amendment become a mockery and a right reserved to a few?

If investigative journalism was up to par, would Barack (I won't release my school transcripts) Obama been elected? Would Clinton have retained his office after Lewinsky?

Those are just some of the things I wanted to further touch on and lastly say yes there was discussion about the theory of the liberalized media but there is also just as many arguments out there that there is no liberal media conspiracy but rather those with their own biases that hold those views and see what they want to see. And lastly I was say it again that ultimately it is up to the individual to inform themselves and discriminate what is bias, what is objective, what is fair, and what is not...

I have lived too long to not notice the slide by the press (and the Democrat Party) into full blown liberalism, so that either or argument is immateral, imo. It's the younger set, who doesn't have a discriminating eye, that are all too easily seduced not thinking that news anchors laughing at Tea Party'ers, mocking vice-presidential candidates, and vowing to do whatever they can to make sure a president of their choosing succeeds. No, it is not enough to expect and individual who has been raised in a media sewer to be prepared to discern between bad and not so bad jouralism. It's a responsibility for the established media, climing protection as part of the First Estate, to be good at its J-O-B.

Take care!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If investigative journalism were up to par would Bush have been elected once, let alone twice?

[dalegg 143]

If investigative journalism were up to par would Bush have been elected once, let alone twice?

To be fair, most Americans didn't actually vote to elect Bush the first time, so that was kind of a fluke, but the re-election was inevitable. Since the Johnson era, whenever congress is even partially controlled by the Republicans, the incumbant president is re-elected, regardless of what party he's from.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The US election system was long ago taken over by ex-marketing/advertising/public relations types who could take an empty suit and make it look surprisingly full. This is why there is very little actual debate in politics (and hasn't been for years) - Instead politicians stand around reciting cliches or ticking the boxes with stale party political cliches.

Not only do they do this, but they get away with it. That is the fault of an increasingly corporatised and homogenised media and of a general population (some educated, some not) who either buy into trite slogans or are simply too jaded and apathetic about the whole business to care.

[dalegg 143]

The US election system was long ago taken over by ex-marketing/advertising/public relations types who could take an empty suit and make it look surprisingly full. This is why there is very little actual debate in politics (and hasn't been for years) - Instead politicians stand around reciting cliches or ticking the boxes with stale party political cliches.

Not only do they do this, but they get away with it. That is the fault of an increasingly corporatised and homogenised media and of a general population (some educated, some not) who either buy into trite slogans or are simply too jaded and apathetic about the whole business to care.

Yes.

[Peikko 1,575]

Ah, the disingenuous VW and her house of cards again. If you wanted a proper discourse about media failings, you would hardly simply pick on liberalism as the culprit. It's hard to see clearly with a log in one's eye though isn't it? One of the biggest logs being your penchant for Mr Limbaugh and his particular brand of hot headed sensationalist junk. How you believe anyone can take you seriously when you bang on about where American journalism the media in general, where stands or where it is headed when you hold this mouth piece up as an example of media doing things right is anyone's guess.

Poor old Sarah, eh, she would be fabulous if it wasn't for the media's failures, eh?

Edited July 13, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

In addition to investigative journalism, I was also a political PR rep and speechwriter.

That explains a lot. Journalists and PR reps are like light vs. dark. We consider PR the dark side as they are always tempting us with their cookies being master spin doctors and writers of fluff piece. One may go to the websites of any politician and know it was written by their PR reps to make them look good of course but it isn't were a journalist goes to know all the facts. At the same time there is a dynamic between PR people and Journalists in that they need each other. PR people create events that journalists can report on thus having job security and PR people need the journalists to do the reporting to make their event reputable. A journalists job is to observe and question the facts and then report the facts. Often times they can come off as cynical for this. I remember when my prof who is also an active journalist for 30 something years told us the story where he was on scene reporting on a huge fire and the fire chief asked to use his pen and he wouldn't give it to him. He said absolutely not. That it was his job not to become part of the story in anyway and that he was there to observe and get the facts in every attempt to stay objective. This may seem abrasive to some but those are his journalistic ethics and he wasn't willing to ever compromise himself, his integrity, or his reputation.

The treatment of Palin, conservatives in contrast to liberals, and the motivations behind it is no small matter in an institution so quick to protect itself via the First Amendment.

I found myself in a weird paradox this last election watching the Palin coverage because here I was raised between the capitol cities of Texas and Idaho most of my life and ironically I was attending the same University that she graduated from in the same degree and minor. Granted I have never run for political office but our profs would say to us look around you. One of your classmates who won't be remembered for anything at the University in 30 years like Palin may be the next VP candidate of the GOP. Then I would watch the coverage on her and hear the pundents say she was undereducated and I would take it personal wondering if they are commenting her degree or her knowledge in general of foreign politics and communication.

I recall many lectures in my broadcast news class where we would review the news coverage about Palin every step of the way and discuss the conservatives verses the liberal media and if it was fair or not. Watching this coverage at first was a bit confusing for me and especially the discussions of was what so and so did or said in that interview right or wrong and we were never given a formal answer. It was stated that bias is inherent in human beings and no matter what, as a person, you are bringing your own bias to an organization but it is your duty to uphold the traditional journalistic values and if you don't that will be made evident and there are consequences.

Such as the case of Dan Rather who aired a report based on information that was misleading and eventually lead to his resignation. He was a fine reporter who fell subject to the error of misinformation and basic fact checking and took the rap for it as the Senior correspondent. Now he's reporting solely for an internet news organization.

The exceptions to the rules are if you are hired to work for a known news organization with the agenda created by the Producers, who run the show, to cater to a certain bias - thus the birth of niche markets. It no secret that MSNBC caters to the left and the producers have even announced it so. However that doesn't mean that all of it's programming for the entire network is bias but that largely the majority of the programming does cater to it just as it's well known FOX caters to the right.

It wasn't until I took my Senior capstone class Media History that these discussion about media bias and the liberal versus the conservative bias became more clear to me in that they are equally guilty if one steps back and goes into the history. One of the arguments against the liberal media conspiracy is the period of the conservative rise from the 80's and well into the 90's that historically refutes it. The driving factor in this story was Rush Limbaugh a well know conservative radio talk show host whose editorial commentary drew the attention of ABC Radio's president, Edward F. McLaughlin, who moved Rush to New York offering him a national radio talk show. The power of the other broadcast media is the oldest propaganda tool used by leaders, such as Hitler, and the media, and is not to be underestimated. Pretty soon Rush was drawing the attention of conservative white angry males everywhere. Conservative Politicians saw the Limbaugh mouthpiece as gold and a motivating factor for uniting the party and it's subsequent rise to power in the political sphere. Conservatives loved their power when they got a taste for it again. Limbaugh's shows inspired the television news broadcast to be more tongue and cheek like radio talk format and thus we see shows like The O'Reilly Factor who caters to conservative audiences as a niche market. These conservative markets had hosts that were fast talking, often over talking their opponents with quick to the point hard line dialog.

The liberal media had a difficult time coming up with an answer for this quick paced hard line dialog that captured the attention spans of the channel changers long enough to keep them entertained. At first the liberal media outlets were being characterized as long winded because their points had to elaborate on the full background to make a story relevant and factual. Then they came up with their answers to the niche market audience in shows with hosts like Keith Olbermann who went for the jugular similar to the conservative news talk shows. So which came first the chicken or the egg? When the writer of your original article said you created this hot mess starting with Rush Limbaugh he was referring to the source of the whole decline in the history of serious media versus bias media IMHO.

I won't even mention what went on at MSNBC. All in all, the coverage was embarrassing for anyone with a classical education in journalism, but it says even more about what how social norms are perceived by an established network like CNN wen they believe that it's fine and dandy to not only dismiss but openly diss a segment of the populace as buffoons for merely exercising their right to disagree with the establishment. This is an example of why I worry about our protections, checks and balances and our democracy in the face of institutionalized mockery and arrogance.

And they wonder why their ratings are sagging badly.

CNN's ratings are sagging not because their niche market isn't there but because the material they provide repeats itself and their audience knows that they can tune in at anytime and catch the programming for the day and be done with it. With today's instant access technology and news on demand their audience is dwindling even further because why tune into the middle of a broadcast to catch the news for today when you can have it from start to finish at your finger tips online. Plus it is cable programming and they are competing with all those other cable channels out there with limitless forms of entertainment that people would rather be watching.

I agree that the individual has a role, but liberalism is the norm in the media world, and that is the message that is widely projected.

Maybe at this current time that is what the majority of audiences want and maybe it's just what you pay attention to because like O'Reilly and Limbaugh to the liberal crowd it rubs you the wrong way.

I have lived too long to not notice the slide by the press (and the Democrat Party) into full blown liberalism, so that either or argument is immateral, imo.

Granted your my Mom's age and she most certainly reminds me the era she grew up in was different then the era I grew up in and the challenges she faced whose shoulders lifted our generation up to stand on. I can see where she is coming from and the reason she is the way she is but I can also see were it stops with her issues and views and begins with my own.

They say as we age people become more conservative. As for there being a slide into a full blown liberal press I have to disagree. The pendulum swings both ways and with the rise and fall of the conservative era comes the rise and fall of the liberal era but there are still those in between trying to find their way and pundents on both sides trying to sway them.

[Danno 1,228]

Not sure why we keep bringing in Rush Limbaugh as an example of the "Media on the Right".

He is not a news caster nor journalist.

Rush has no duty to report facts or present an unbiased view anymore than any other political talkinghead.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Not sure why we keep bringing in Rush Limbaugh as an example of the "Media on the Right".

He is not a news caster nor journalist.

Rush has no duty to report facts or present an unbiased view anymore than any other political talkinghead.

And I would add he is OUTSTANDING in that role. But Daniel Steele, the Republican National Committee Chairman no less, gave Rush the honor of being a leader of the party. So they need to live with that choice.

[Danno 1,228]

Not sure why we keep bringing in Rush Limbaugh as an example of the "Media on the Right".

He is not a news caster nor journalist.

Rush has no duty to report facts or present an unbiased view anymore than any other political talkinghead.

And I would add he is OUTSTANDING in that role. But Daniel Steele, the Republican National Committee Chairman no less, gave Rush the honor of being a leader of the party. So they need to live with that choice.

Is that just a random thought or was that somehow connected to my point?

I'm making a point about the press .......That Rush is not part of The Press.

whether he is head of the GOP or even elected President , .. what does that have to do with

the Press and the unique roll/ responsibility they have?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I believe the reason Rush was brought into this is because the person who wrote that big essay on the failure of the 4th Estate is a proud Rush listener and has said as much on numerous occasions.

No, Rush is not part of the press - if anything he is worse, given that he doesn't deal in journalism per-se and yet has this huge following. What that shows is that the fringe media (if Rush can be called fringe, personally I don't think so) is no better than the so-called "liberal mainstream media".

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Not sure why we keep bringing in Rush Limbaugh as an example of the "Media on the Right".

He is not a news caster nor journalist.

Rush has no duty to report facts or present an unbiased view anymore than any other political talkinghead.

And I would add he is OUTSTANDING in that role. But Daniel Steele, the Republican National Committee Chairman no less, gave Rush the honor of being a leader of the party. So they need to live with that choice.

Is that just a random thought or was that somehow connected to my point?

I'm making a point about the press .......That Rush is not part of The Press.

whether he is head of the GOP or even elected President , .. what does that have to do with

the Press and the unique roll/ responsibility they have?

Not entirely random, although I perhaps misunderstood the purpose of your Rush reference. For better or worse, his radio schtick passes as both 'news' and an outlet for 'leadership' in the Republican Party.

The fact he is neither a true journalist, nor a true politician, and has at too many times to list espoused lunatic points of view highlight the current blending of news/politics/and good old fashioned lunacy in this great country!

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I believe the reason Rush was brought into this is because the person who wrote that big essay on the failure of the 4th Estate is a proud Rush listener and has said as much on numerous occasions.

No, Rush is not part of the press - if anything he is worse, given that he doesn't deal in journalism per-se and yet has this huge following. What that shows is that the fringe media (if Rush can be called fringe, personally I don't think so) is no better than the so-called "liberal mainstream media".

What a wasted and unoriginal segway. So what if I listen to Rush? I listen to a lot of political pundits. I never mentioned Rush in my posts, nor do I - unlike you libs - have difficulty telling the difference between a journalist, a reporter, a policitician and a political pundit. Rush this, Rush that, blah blah bleh. You are merely mimicking who you've been told by your lib leaders to hate and mock. Good grief! Can't yu see that there's no thinking involved in doing that?

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I believe the reason Rush was brought into this is because the person who wrote that big essay on the failure of the 4th Estate is a proud Rush listener and has said as much on numerous occasions.

No, Rush is not part of the press - if anything he is worse, given that he doesn't deal in journalism per-se and yet has this huge following. What that shows is that the fringe media (if Rush can be called fringe, personally I don't think so) is no better than the so-called "liberal mainstream media".

What a wasted and unoriginal segway. So what if I listen to Rush? I listen to a lot of political pundits. I never mentioned Rush in my posts, nor do I - unlike you libs - have difficulty telling the difference between a journalist, a reporter, a policitician and a political pundit. Rush this, Rush that, blah blah bleh. You are merely mimicking who you've been told by your lib leaders to hate and mock. Good grief! Can't yu see that there's no thinking involved in doing that?

I would love to agree with you, but then we would both be wrong. Listening to Rush for anything more than belly laughs is a sign you might need a good lobotomy.