Memes, mementos and missives by Macauley
The Onion: Bush Tours America to Survey Damage Caused by Presidency
President Bush will seek to comfort victims of his presidency as they try to make sense of the destruction he has caused.
Gotta love The Onion!
![Vladimir Putin [Photo: TIME Inc.]](http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2007/poy/putin_qa_alt_1231.jpg)
A few items on my reading list this week. I don’t necessarily fault the journalists, but the corporate pressures they are under.
SOME things to watch and discourage in 2008:
Obsequious pandering
Media consolidation
Entertainment-journalism
***
Is TIME’s Putin “Person of the Year” Cover Story a Fraudulent Cover Up?
A glaring factual error was apparently edited out of the transcript in an attempt to spare top executives embarrassment over an exchange at the beginning of the recent chat between the Russian leader and Time.Inc editor in chief John Huey, Time managing editor Richard Stengel and deputy managing editor Adi Ignatius. [MORE...]
From Media is Plural / RoryOconnor.org
***
Where Did All the Good Journalism Go?
Unfortunately, with all the bad news, phony news, faux news and Fox News out there, it’s all too easy to create a Top Ten Worst Journalism list-maybe even a Top Thousand! But in the spirit of the season, let’s try to be a bit more positive, shall we? In this age of media scams and scandals, of paid opinion and information warfare, of partisan power plays and the corrupt nexus of Big Media and Big Politics, how and where can we find quality news and information we can trust?
Enter NewsTrust.net, a new, not-for-profit social news network dedicated to helping citizens find and share quality news and information online. Guess what? It turns out that there’s lots of good journalism being practiced out there… [MORE...]
***
Bill Clinton Is Right [About Campaign Coverage]
“No wonder people think experience is irrelevant. A lot of people covering the race think it is.”– Bill Clinton, December 4, 2007.
He might be the former president of the United States, but when Bill Clinton dared critique the press for the vacuous way it covers campaigns, he got smacked down by the media elites who unleashed their contempt and, fittingly, misstated what Clinton had said.Such is the state of affairs where, as Clinton noted, campaign issues have faded so far in the rearview mirror for the press that they’ve dipped below the horizon. [MORE...]
From MediaMatters.org
Two progressive media titans…
KEITH OLBERMANN:
“I would like nothing better than to go back and do maybe a sportscast every night. But I think the stuff that I’m talking about is so obvious and will be viewed in such terms of certainty by history that this era will be looked at the way we look now at the — at the presidents and the — the leaders of this country who rolled back reconstruction. I think it’s that obvious. And I think only under those circumstances would I go this far out on a limb and be this vociferous about it.”
(Text courtesy AlterNet) In a revealing interview with Bill Moyers, Keith Olbermann talks about the genesis of his Countdown special comments, how he almost quit his current show in 2003 when MSNBC tried to force him to air and commentary by Mike Savage and also how he has transferred his considerable skills as a sports journalist to covering the world of politics. Part of the trick for Keith was maintaining the same sense of skepticism he did about the star athletes he covered, when covering politicians in Washington.
A few weeks ago, the folks at the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press released the second part of their survey, “Two Decades of American News Preferences.” In most cases they found no significant change in the public’s preferences across six news “super categories,” with the exception of “Money News” — Americans are more interested in financial news than in the past.
What interested me, however, were some comments by Curtis Brainard, of the Columbia Journalism Review, regarding the differences between interest and coverage:
…what is truly fascinating is the explanation for this contradiction between interest and coverage: “Even the smallest shifts in ratings can cause news organizations to alter substantially their news focus,” [study author Michael J. Robinson] writes, and often toward “a lower common denominator.” But these alterations, marked by “saturation” coverage, are often temporary and aimed at capturing the niche rather than the national audience. This harkens back to the earlier, chicken-and-egg discussion of where interest lags behind coverage, and where it exceeds coverage. “That the national news audience does not shift its news diet nearly so quickly as news organizations shift their news menu” is one of the most important take-away messages for journalists in Robinson’s study.
Robinson implies that on a national scale changes in coverage tend to mold public interest rather than vice versa. If so, journalists must be especially cognizant of their influence on not only opinions about the news, but also on what is considered newsworthy to begin with. Responsible editors and reporters like to think they do not pander to people’s basest interests, but rather guide and educate them. So perhaps the more pressing question is not, how have preferences changed, but rather to what degree and how quickly does content influence those preferences? Does a diet of more junk food create an appetite for more junk? Does a healthy diet create the reverse? [My emphasis -MP]
And if an outlet such as CNN chooses to even temporarily woo a niche audience for the sake of ratings — by chasing the Anna Nicole Smith story, for example — what is sacrificed with regard to the national audience? Hopefully, reports such as the Robinson’s study will help guide journalists as they try to find answers.
I have always thought this sort of influence was likely, and criticized mainstream media (MSM) coverage when they go radically overboard on a non-story like that runaway bride in April 2005. It’s a bit like tabloid journalism being passed off as real news. Jon Stewart and his writers on The Daily Show have particularly well attuned radar for this.
The question is to what extent the molding of interest is intentional. It’s not impossible to imagine a world in which the trend towards media consolidation, combined with greed and political corruption undermines journalistic integrity. Many would argue were already there with Fox (or “faux”) News. Call it Weapons of Mass Distraction. (See Connie Rice on the Tavis Smiley Show. And a Triangle Show was named after it too.) The ability to distract comes despite the efforts of quality individual journalists. It’s one reason why I’m intrigued by new ideas like the Real News Network, “a non-profit news and documentary network focused on providing independent and uncompromising journalism.”
Why We Let an Atheist Join Our Church
By Rev. Jim Rigby, AlterNet.
After years of advocacy for progressive causes, I am used to angry mail — often from fellow Christians — when I take a political or theological position that challenges conservative or fundamentalist views.
So I wasn’t surprised when many were unhappy about the decision of St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church in Austin, Texas, where I am the pastor, to let a self-professed atheist become a member. But the intensity and tone of the condemnations were surprising; this wave of mail feels different, more desperate, like people have been backed against a wall.
Ironically, the new member, a longtime leftist political activist and professor in Austin, has been getting mail from fellow atheists skeptical of his decision.
“How can you do this?” both sides are asking.
(More…)