Eric Boehlert: Obama and McCain coverage: "Nuts" or a "disgrace"?

[babylonsister]

Obama and McCain coverage: "Nuts" or a "disgrace"?

by Eric Boehlert


Journalism, by nature, is not difficult. It really isn't. Most of the key attributes for solid reporting and editing come naturally to most people; fairness, hard work, and -- most important -- common sense.

News judgment, for instance, consists mostly of editors and producers using common sense to determine, based on the limited resources at hand, which breaking events and stories should be covered, and which ones can be set aside as less important.

During the slow summer months of a presidential campaign, that judgment and that common sense is usually even easier to put into practice because, traditionally, so little happens on the campaign trail with the candidates that what ought to be covered becomes self-evident.

Yet the Beltway press corps has become so borderline dysfunctional that even the simplest tasks, such as selecting which stories to cover -- such as using common sense -- now escape most of the major players at the mainstream news organizations.

Two events in recent days reaffirmed that sad conclusion, when entire news organizations opted to throw all sorts of time and attention at what was essentially a pointless campaign-related sideshow, while simultaneously displaying blanket indifference to what should have been the campaign story of the week, if not the month or possibly the entire summer.

Last week, after being hyped by Matt Drudge and Fox News, the Beltway press unanimously decided that Rev. Jesse Jackson's whispered comments, picked up on a live television set mic, in which he expressed anger with Sen. Barack Obama and used some crude language to convey his sentiments (i.e. he wanted to cut off Obama's "nuts"), represented a hugely important event. It was the most-covered campaign story of the week.

By contrast, McCain said at a campaign appearance in Denver on July 7 that the Social Security system as structured in America, in which younger people pay taxes to support the benefits of retirees, is an "absolute disgrace" -- but his proclamation was mostly passed over as being irrelevant. The disconnect between the coverage was astounding.

more...

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200807150002

[groovedaddy]

1. Amen...this is what happens when you place the control of the

media in fewer and fewer hands. After the way the media covered (or didn't) the run up to the Iraq invasion, it was clear that all bets were off and it was open season on the truth. The "flow of information" has become constipated in order to serve other ends.

[Buzz Clik]

2. Yes, the MSM has gone insane and embarrass themselves.

And they feed us exactly what the public wants.

Of course, if the media simply turned to DU to dictate the daily publication of stories, the world would be so enlightened.

:rofl:

[babylonsister]

4. Excuse me, but don't you think calling the Social Security system

a disgrace might enlighten people? Perhaps some people might even appreciate hearing what's going on. Why was that kicked to the curb, but Jackson's comments got so much press?

DU has nothing to do with it; lack of media standards do.

[Buzz Clik]

6. I agreed with the premise of the OP that we get horrid coverage, and I stated as much.

However, some people actually depend on DU for news coverage (I've read that here, and no doubt you've heard it). Imagine their twisted point of view.

That was my single point.

[babylonsister]

7. Okay. But people who read news on DU get more

factual news than watching or reading m$m. Trust me; that's why I try to post so much, because you don't hear or read it anywhere else. And that's the travesty.

[Buzz Clik]

12. DU more factual? Maybe. Certainly a different view of the news.

Reading the front page here at DU, one could get the opinion that Barack Obama is a John Bircher or that FISA is just a front for fixing elections. They wouldn't hear that from you, Sister, but they'd hear it and they'd hear it alot.

You, kpete, and others are diligent in digging up facts that enrich all of us, and I do not discount your efforts. Tip o'the hat.

[chelsea0011]

3. After Iraq one would think the media would reassess itself and

get back to reporting. I guess not. It is one negative Obama story after another.

[NatBurner]

5. great read

i'm skimming the comments right now-

[TexasObserver]

8. it's the news network managers who set the news agenda

They know that the smiling news talkers will do or say ANYTHING that gets them more face time on the camera.

So, the trend is to talk about gossip, to run stories about blind girls who lose their dog and get another one as a gift from someone. They run stories about missing white women, as if one white woman missing is worth more attention than war dead.

Sound news types get their time reduced. Air heads rule the day.

[babylonsister]

9. I disagree. The cable guys are strategically NOT showing

any McSame stories that are negative; they want him to win, so they fill their hours with the fluff you mentioned, or villifying Obama.
There are plenty of real news stories about McSame out there, but they refuse. That speaks volumes.

[TexasObserver]

10. they may want to help McCain, but this trend started years ago

I don't doubt the powers want to help McCain, but this dumbing down and feeding the need for gossip news has been a trend for years. Fox News led the way since 2000, and the others fell into line after watching themselves lose market to Fox.

The new brand of news readers are supposed to help us understand how we're suppose to FEEL about the news we are being told. Are we disgusted? The news reader cues us. Are we happy? Doubtful? The cues of the news reader are suppose to let us know the proper response expected of us.

[babylonsister]

11. The thing is, when a channel espouses that they are THE

channel for politics (m$nbc/cnn), you'd think you'd get some politics in the mix. What's the point otherwise? We're getting it, but it's totally one-sided.

[Skwmom]

13. Why is it so hard to believe that the corporate media wants a corporate

President, who will toe the corporate line in the Whitehouse? People have done a lot worse for money.

[TexasObserver]

14. It's not. I do believe it. I just don't think it's the reason for silly news stories.

The primary consumers of silly news stories are women, and they are plied heavily during the day time hours because more women watch then. It's not network news managers who make women watch hour after hour of "white woman missing" coverage. It's not because they want John McCain, it's because they want to sell make-up, and weight loss systems, and clothes to women, and women as a demographic love to watch soft news stories.