NewsCommonsense

Cynicism, To What Purpose?

William Branigin, who once wrote a story I was involved in and did it pretty well, had the first full summation of the healthcare summit yesterday on The Washington Post’s website.  At least, I think he did.  My aging mind, diminished further by a few too many falls off my bike (I am notorious to my friends for my lack of balance), may be failing me here.  I would link you to the story, but it now appears gone.  I immediately copied the url before I had a chance to write this post.  It was http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/25/AR2010022502369_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2010022502486.  But it now links to a shorter story with different reporters.

Branigin’s story, posted at a few minutes after six o’clock, was a good summation of the key issues and was fair to both parties in summarizing their ideas.  But he had this paragraph that I took issue with.

Republicans and Democrats attending the meeting at the presidential guest house across from the White House indicated that they remain far apart on key provisions advocated by each side. There were also major unresolved divisions within the Democratic Party, whose leaders were looking beyond a meeting they expected to amount to little more than political theater and focusing on a final round of negotiations within the party.

Yes, it was political theatre.  But who says a good show doesn’t serve some higher purpose.  It was a chance for Americans to see the two parties discuss their ideas in the open, face to face.  Not a bad practice, even if there were make-up and a little artistic flourish.

Branigin’s use of the phrase suggests a cynicism that I’m not sure all Americans share.  We say we want to see folks talking with each other.  Why dismiss it, as if to say, “Folks read no further; there’s nothing here to read”?

Why The Post is Becoming Irrelevant

With all the problems the American way of life faces today--declining economic leadership and standard of living, two wars, a broken healthcare system, climate change, increasing energy costs, a financial system that holds the taxpayer hostage--what is The Washington Post covering today?

Before the papers even hit the driveways, I count on its web site 12—Count ‘em, 12!--stories/posts/commentaries, etc. on Tiger Woods’ apology yesterday.  And these are only the ones I can find links for on its home page:

“A disgusting apology,” “Woods convinced me,” “Taking the blame,” “Call it a half-apology,” “Tiger Woods Apologizes,” “Tiger Woods’…Mea Culpa,” “…Apology Leaves Little Room for Sincerity,” “Sincere and Thorough,” “…What Do We Believe,” “Woods Opens Door on Private Life…,” “Will Tiger Join the Shame Hall of Fame,” and last, but not least though certainly a new low for The Post, a poll, asking readers what they think.

Let me spare you all the wasted time reading the work of 12 writers and God knows how many editors, web and graphic designers, and the poor dead trees that gave up their lives for this.  Here’s the video of his public apology.

Let me save you more time:  Don’t view the video.  I didn’t.  And as Friday night rolls into Saturday morning in the central time zone, I can say I have survived not knowing what he had to say.  I may not make it ‘til morning.  I may wake up in a cold sweat and succumb to watching it and reading what all these underemployed journalists think about it. 

Most of them, of course, are pissed that he apparently took a swipe at them.  (I couldn’t help hearing that on a TV news report that caught me before I could run out of the room screaming.) They feel cheated:

“Tiger, would you let us know what your wife said to you when she found out?”

“Yo, Tiger, did you really tell a porn star you loved her and would marry her?  Oh, and how was she?”

“Please tell us, how does it feel to be so humiliated?”  (Note to non-reporters:  “How does it feel?” is the first question all reporters learn to ask.  Adding questions to their repertoire can help their careers, but isn’t really necessary.)

I’m willing to bet that when the paper comes out in the morning, you won’t find 12 full-fledged news stories in the A section.  As I’m out of town, let me know, and if proven wrong, I’ll admit it—in front of cameras with my family members in the audience.  And I’ll try to top Tiger by getting my wife to be there looking distraught and shamed that I guessed wrong.

But only if The Post apologizes to all those dead trees.

Punditry=Over Analysis

Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman provides context to Obama’s declining popularity, currently around 50 percent, depending on the poll.  He’s simply following the usual path of a new president’s first year.  In fact, the Dallas Morning News headline outs it this way:  “Just Like Reagan.”  Mr. Greed-Is-Good, however, rebounded to win 49 states in the next next election.  George W. Bush was on his way to suffering the same fate in his first year, but for 9/11, which despite it being his administration that let its guard down and cost the lives of 3,000 people, that helped his popularity soared.

Chapman cites research by Stanford University professor Douglas Rivers.

Though Obama rated the lowest of recent presidents at the end of his first year, Rivers says the pattern "is pretty much in line with what you would expect." What we see is "more a continuing trend than an Obama phenomenon."

That's not to say Obama has made no mistakes. Every president bungles some things, and every president pays a price.

His fiscal policy and health care plan, in particular, have spawned public resentment. On the other hand, his grades on gay rights and immigration have actually improved — possibly because he has done less than expected on either. There is no real evidence to suggest that the public finds Obama far more fallible or detestable than they usually find presidents at this stage.

On health care reform, it's not clear what he could have done differently to appease a notoriously demanding citizenry. Surveys indicate people think that if his plan passes, they will get "worse care at a higher cost," says Rivers. What do they expect if his plan doesn't pass? "They'll get worse care at a higher cost."

I wish I could say Americans' suspicion of health care reform shows a sensible appreciation of the limits of government power and responsibility. But I suspect the real problem is they fear it will not guarantee them everything they want at someone else's expense. Rivers notes that when you ask people about specific components of the plan, they turn out to be "fairly popular."

If Americans distrust the government, they also take a dim view of the private sector, or parts of it. "Anything negative for insurance companies is popular," says Rivers. Most people blame insurers for rising health care expenditures, even though insurance companies are one of the few constituencies with a powerful interest in reducing outlays.

This is not the contradiction it may appear. People don't mind when national health care costs rise. They do mind when their personal health care costs rise. When that happens, they blame health insurers. They may also blame the president.

But most important is Chapman’s observation of politicians and the media, pointing out how frustrating it is to see the amount of newsprint dedicated to the daily politics of reform and the insipid observations of the pundit class.

American politicians and commentators are generally not afflicted by a deep knowledge or appreciation of history. If they were, they would not waste their time laboring to explain something that requires little explanation. They could simply state the obvious — new presidents invariably lose public esteem in the first year of their terms — and go on to try to explicate something truly mysterious, like Lady Gaga.

And later,

It's a mistake to think every political trend has deep meaning.

George Will Slams Media

While Will’s column is more about the futility of populism, his last graph puts a knife in today’s journalists.

Political nature abhors a vacuum, which is what often exists for a year or two in a party after it loses a presidential election. But today's saturation journalism, mesmerized by presidential politics and ravenous for material, requires a steady stream of political novelties. In that role, Palin is united with the media in a relationship of mutual loathing. This is not her fault. But neither is it her validation.

In fact, it is to MSM’s advantage to make Palin credible as she is a ratings draw.  So they will not ignore her; they will give her attention that any other female politician who deserted her constituents would not get, especially if they weren’t as attractive physically as she is.

No Such Thing as Objective News Reporting?

I know nothing about either of these journals, the online “Creative Loafing” or the Atlanta Progressive News. But here’s an odd interpretation of reporting.  APN fired a reporter because he tried to report “objectively,” at least that’s what his former employer said. 

He held on to the notion that there was an objective reality that could be reported objectively, despite the fact that that was not our editorial policy at Atlanta Progressive News. It just wasn’t the right fit.

…We believe there is no such thing as objective news. Typically, mainstream media presents itself as objective but is actually skewed towards promoting the corporate agenda of the ultra-wealthy.

APN, on the other hand, does not pretend to be objective. We believe that our news coverage is fair and that our progressive principles are fair. We aim when possible to give voice to all sides, but aim to provide something different than what is already provided by corporate sources.”

APN’s statement is interesting and not without some merit.  In most stories, there are a lot of facts you could include but can’t because of space.  What you include and exclude therefore means a story is not all-encompassing.  But does that mean there is no objectivity?  Reporting has become stenography at many mainstream media organizations.  They report both sides of an issue, even if one side is so far out of the mainstream as to be inconsequential, at least from a scientific standpoint.  Climate change, for example. The overwhelming number of climatologists believe the earth is warming due to man’s emissions.  But because the doubters cry loud enough and accuse the MSM of bias, The climate change deniers gets reported as if there is serious doubt.  Also, blatantly hypocritical positions are ignored; for example, the Congressional Republicans’ stance toward stimulus funding.  Rachel Maddow, on the MSNBC (mostly) liberal network, is one of the few journalists reporting the hypocrisy.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Hypocrisy would seem to be something voters would want to know about.  It’s objective—and important--information.  APN, it being a progressive newspaper, might report this hypocrisy, but would ignoring Democratic hypocrisy be objective?  Hardly.

News You Can Refuse

It still doesn’t look like internet users are willing to pay for new content sites, at least according to the headline on this S.F. Chronicle story.  But dig deeper and there appears some hope for rags considering charging for content.

The New York Times and other news outlets have said they will start charging for online access to news stories. But Nielsen said only 34 percent of newspaper readers and 39 percent of magazine readers would consider paying for online content, and that percentage drops to 31 percent for users of online-only news sites.

If about a third of your online readers are willing to pay something, even if only pennies per story, you would think newspapers could make the model work.

Great Stenography, Roz

"I don't believe someone should be forced to buy something they don't want to," said Sen. Phillip P. Puckett, a Democrat who represents rural Russell County. "It's un-American. And it might be unconstitutional."

One of The Post’s better stenographers used this quote in her story this morning about the Virginia Senate voting to make it illegal to force people to buy health insurance.  It apparently never occurred to Roz Helderman as she was scribbling the quote to ask, “What about auto insurance?”

See, that would require her to think.  But when your job is to get what one side says and then the other side’s perspective and voila, you have a story, there’s no need to dig a little deeper, especially when you know your editors will be pleased as punch at another article with no context nor journalistic thoughtfulness.