Newspapers prefer blow jobs to illegal spying (Media Matters)

[kpete]

Saturday, January 21, 2006
Newspapers prefer blow jobs to illegal spying

Media Matters has an interesting piece comparing the amount of articles and reporting used by The Washington Post and The New York Times following the breaking of the Monica Lewinsky scandal versus the amount of coverage of the NSA spying scandal.

They also include a list of questions they think the media should be asking:

So, some questions for the Times, and the Post, and ABC, and CBS, and NBC, and CNN, and Time, and Newsweek, and other leading news organizations:

1)How many reporters, editors, and researchers did you assign to the Lewinsky story when it broke? How many remained assigned to that story one month later?

2)How many reporters, editors, and researchers did you assign to the NSA story when it broke? How many remained assigned to that story one month later?

3)How do you explain the disparity?

We assume many news organizations would respond by saying that they aren't devoting as much attention to the NSA matter because it hasn't captured the nation's attention the way the Lewinsky investigation did.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200601210001#2
via:http://edwardcopeland.blogspot.com/2006/01/newspapers-prefer-blow-jobs-to-illegal.html

[Sparkly]

1. Good point.

:thumbsup:

[Missy Vixen]

2. But-but-but, nobody got a (insert term for consensual sex act here)!

>We assume many news organizations would respond by saying that they aren't devoting as much attention to the NSA matter because it hasn't captured the nation's attention the way the Lewinsky investigation did.<

Sure it hasn't. Nobody cares if the NSA are listening in on (and most likely recording,) their most personal conversations. After all, it's just not as important as if ANYONE is having any kind of sex anywhere near the White House, is it? :sarcasm:

Unbelievable. I wonder if I've awoken in an alternate universe.

Julie

[Catherine Vincent]

3. Media Matters is right

It just so happens I have a lot of my old Newsweek magazines from 1998 through the end of the Clinton presidency. I decided to look through some of them recently and was amazed of all the articles on that mess. During that time, a lot of Clinton-haters made themselves a lot of money during that era. I remember all those talking head shows. Clinton (and Hillary) was on Newsweek's cover more than I can count!

[Mutley]

4. I guess Presidential sex sells more papers.

:(

[Mme. Defarge]

5. Capitalism's run amok

when the news is just another commodity, subject to the laws of supply and demand.

[Zenlitened]

7. Exactly. There's no journalism in the news biz anymore. - n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

6. My sis worked for a major cable news network at the time

She was a producer in DC for the evening anchor and she and a camera crew staked out the Lewinsky family outside the Watergate for several months! They were there every day, waiting for Monica or her mom to come out so they could follow them like paparazzi. It was THE biggest story they were covering and they devoted a tremendous amount of resources to it. You can better "capture the nation's attention" when you do that, I would say.

[Coexist]

8. Really want to know???? << ASK THEM >>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=106&topic_id=8816&mesg_id=16328

Reply here after you do.

[robbedvoter]

9. Most of careers on Cable TV politics were built then - Tweety,

Ann the Man - and just about every slob that yammers today. This guy was barely known before the big sexual act happened:

[NanceGreggs]

10. The MSM news is no longer a matter of ...

... what stories 'capture the imagination' of the viewers. It's now a matter of what stories capture the imagination of the newscasters themselves.

[morningglory]

11. Somebody please give * a b.j. so we can impeach him! (As

someone else said...) Or maybe drop him in a mine shaft. No, that is ridiculous. Sorry.