Old Media

[Controlled Chaos]

A couple of articles

 

Lecturing liberal lion of the old media

Dec 28, 2005

by David Limbaugh ( bio | archive | contact )

 

"You can call me anything you want, but do not call me a racist," said an indignant President George Bush on Dec. 12, commenting on the despicable, opportunistic suggestion that any inadequacies in the federal response to Hurricane Katrina were due to racism.

 

But veteran network media giants Ted Koppel and Tom Brokaw don't quite see it that way. Indeed, they don't appear to see eye-to-eye with President Bush on much of anything if their joint interview with Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press" is any indication.

 

Russert was uncharacteristically tame toward these two, offering them repeated softballs concerning the past year's main stories. But the relaxed atmosphere gave us a clearer picture of the worldview these men share, which is doubtless representative of most of the Old Media players. From race and taxes to health care and Iraq, they spoke in a monolithic liberal voice, accented by its familiar air of moral superiority.

 

Koppel began by vigorously defending the media for introducing the issue of race into Katrina. "But the question had to be asked," said Koppel, "if that had been a section of a city that was populated by middle-class white people, would the response have been the same? … I think there was just a feeling that you didn't have to be as engaged as I think the federal government would have been."

 

 

Brokaw agreed. "I think Ted is correct when he says it was not overt or active racism." But it sure must have been subconscious racism, huh, Tom?

 

It bothers me deeply when race hucksters play the race card on Katrina for political gain, knowing it is outrageously unfair. But I think it troubles me more to hear these two supposed paragons of 20th-century journalism smugly level the charge and, apparently, really believe it.

 

Superficially distancing themselves from the allegation that racism was directly involved didn't mitigate it in the least. In fact, if President Bush's alleged bigotry were so deeply rooted as to affect his actions without even stirring his moral impulses, he would probably be a more consummate racist than the guy who consciously considers race while discriminating.

 

Isn't it ironic that in their sanctimony against perceived racism, presumably because of the evil of one group feeling superior to another, these two sermonizers reveal their absolute certitude of moral superiority over those who reject their liberal worldview? And their self-righteousness wasn't limited to race but included almost all other issues they discussed.

 

On Iraq, Brokaw talked about "this disconnect between those people who are in uniform and fighting this war over there and a large portion of our population because no sacrifice is being asked of anyone at home. The president is not asking us to conserve oil or to ration gasoline or to push hard for alternative sources of energy in this conflict."

 

Then Koppel eagerly chimed in, "Or to pay a nickel more in taxes."

 

Let's not allow the inanity of their analysis to obscure the thrust of their message: "We are better people than average Americans, especially conservatives, because we care more, even if we don't personally sacrifice more than they do."

 

On health care, Koppel observed, "You can get the best medical care in the world. … I can. Most Americans can't. And there are 43 million Americans who aren't getting any medical care at all. That is a scandal."

 

No, what is scandalous is that Koppel so glibly equates lack of insurance with no medical care. What is repulsive is his implication that we have so many uninsured simply because we don't care enough. And what is intolerably hypocritical is that he probably gave Bill Clinton a pass when he didn't put a dent in the number of uninsured despite campaigning on the issue. Clinton was excused because he pretended to care.

 

It was amusing to witness the elitist duo adopt the Democratic Party line on other issues as well, from President Bush's reputed refusal to admit his "mistakes" to his unwillingness to reach across party lines. And let's not forget his failure to give inspections "a little more time" and "to reach out more" to other nations before attacking Iraq.

 

But why all the fuss? These venerable heavyweights aren't liberal. They just see the world through clearer lenses and operate on a higher moral plane. Reporting, even editorializing, from this perspective doesn't betray a liberal bias but defines objectivity. And those who deviate from their worldview are simply flawed, and racist, sexist, homophobic, greedy, uncompassionate and -- oh, yes -- conservative.

 

 

_______________________________________________________________

 

'Meet the Press' summit reveals elite media's flaw

Dec 28, 2005

by Jonah Goldberg ( bio | archive | contact )

 

Watching Tom Brokaw, Ted Koppel and Tim Russert this past Sunday wasn't quite like seeing dinosaurs asking each other what's happened to all the tasty fronds, but the year-ending edition of NBC's "Meet the Press" offered an excellent glimpse at why the elite mainstream media as we know it is facing extinction.

 

No doubt intended as a grand treat for the viewing audience, "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert invited NBC's Tom Brokaw and ABC's Ted Koppel to ladle out some observations from their deep wells of wisdom for all of the world to imbibe.

 

These three giants of television journalism tut-tutted about one government failure after another, from the Katrina response to the government's inability to provide health care for everybody to our dismayingly low taxes. Brokaw agreed with Koppel, Koppel agreed with Brokaw. Russert nodded as one newsman repeated what the other one just said.

 

For example, regarding the Hurricane Katrina episode - in which the media collectively broke all chains of objectivity in order to preen with outrage over the plight of the downtrodden - Brokaw asserted "there were no gray areas in Katrina." By this he meant the media was 100 percent right for portraying the federal government as 100 percent wrong. This elicited nods all around. Brokaw even quoted Aaron Broussard, the Jefferson Parish president who openly wept on "Meet The Press" about the tardy federal response: "They didn't come. They promised they would come and they didn't come."

 

 

Alas, Brokaw left out the fact that Broussard had to be invited back on the program to clarify various untruths (aka "lies") in his original version of events. Russert let this fact fall by the wayside in this no-gray zone. And on and on it went.

 

Now, it's fair to say that Brokaw, Koppel and Russert are three of the very best journalists the elite mainstream media have ever produced. Respective flaws notwithstanding, they are generally respected by viewers of various ideological outlooks for being tough and serious. Indeed, one of the most overlooked reasons for Russert's success at "Meet the Press" is that conservative viewers respect him enough to tune in. (Right-leaning eyeballs provide television ratings points too, you know.)

 

But in the same way the rules tend to break down when cops are asked to investigate other cops, elite journalists see themselves as above the standards they apply to everyone else. So while Russert wouldn't devote a whole show to nothing but softball questions for a politician or CEO, he turns into Larry King on Prozac when interviewing his colleagues.

 

A thick cloud of nostalgia hung over the set. Why couldn't politicians trust journalists like in the good old days? Why must we have a sound-bite political culture? Why don't politicians follow the agenda set by media muckety-mucks?

 

Such nostalgia is understandable given the culture these men grew up in. In the post-World War II era, television journalism was almost a quasi-governmental institution. There were only three networks, and their news broadcasts set the national debate and drew the nation together in a way that had never happened before. Eventually, the establishment felt entitled to this arrangement. They forgot that this system was the unintended offspring of WWII and the Cold War and the advent of television. Before TV, American journalism was more boisterous and less revered.

 

Today's technological glitz notwithstanding, we are returning to the norm, and the guild-mentality consensus we've "enjoyed" this last half-century is evaporating and will likely never return.

 

When asked to name an underreported story in '05, Brokaw suggested the downsizing of General Motors. Well, GM is a good illustration of what's happening to the elite media. One of the main reasons GM is in such trouble is that it has never won the allegiance of post-WWII consumers. The "greatest generation," as Brokaw calls them, loved their Oldsmobiles, and they've been buying GM cars for 60 years. But that generation is dying, and GM's antiquated products (and pensions) are killing it in a more competitive environment in which young consumers couldn't care less about Oldsmobile.

 

Young people feel the same way about those evening news broadcasts. Fewer than 10 percent of viewers of the major network news shows are under the age of 34. The average viewer is over 60. Haven't you noticed that all of the ads are for adult diapers, denture cream and Viagra? There's nothing wrong with that, but it's a sign that the old system cannot last.

 

Meanwhile, the one institution that has been immune to the media's prying eyes is now being scrutinized itself - not by a journalistic priesthood but by bloggers, independent media and consumers. Rather than embrace the new era, which recognizes that the elite media's power qualifies them as worthy of scrutiny, the elite media circle the wagons. As Ted Koppel asked at the end of "Meet the Press," "When are you getting to the tough questions? Come on, Tim."

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Come on in to The R Hole!

[YASNY]

And people question my perception of the media being left-wing biased for the past 35 years or so. :headshake

[Balta1701]

And yet both of them somehow came to agreement that Clinton would have invaded Iraq as well.

[kapkomet]

And yet both of them somehow came to agreement that Clinton would have invaded Iraq as well.

[YASNY]

And yet both of them somehow came to agreement that Clinton would have invaded Iraq as well.

 

Just like he reacted when the WTC was bombed in 1993. Or the ... s***, I can't remember the name of the US Navy boat that was suicide bombed ... but you know which one I mean. Sure ... Clinton would have invaded. But he would have been invading Monica Lewinsky instead of Iraq.

[southsider2k5]

Just like he reacted when the WTC was bombed in 1993.  Or the ... s***, I can't remember the name of the US Navy boat that was suicide bombed ... but you know which one I mean.  Sure ... Clinton would have invaded.  But he would have been invading Monica Lewinsky instead of Iraq.

 

The USS Cole.

[YASNY]

The USS Cole.

 

Thank you.

[Balta1701]

Just like he reacted when the WTC was bombed in 1993.  Or the ... s***, I can't remember the name of the US Navy boat that was suicide bombed ... but you know which one I mean.  Sure ... Clinton would have invaded.  But he would have been invading Monica Lewinsky instead of Iraq.

And thank God George W. Bush righted that wrong and launched an invasion of the people who were responsible for the Cole when he took office. What a brave act that was, and it certainly saved thousands of American lives from future attacks.

[YASNY]

And thank God George W. Bush righted that wrong and launched an invasion of the people who were responsible for the Cole when he took office.  What a brave act that was, and it certainly saved thousands of American lives from future attacks.

 

It happened on Clinton's watch. It was his responsibility to respond. If Bush had responded two+ years after the fact you would have screamed bloody murder. I'll tell you something, in all honesty. The rhetoric you guys put out here has about driven me to the point that I won't even consider voting for any democrat for any office.

[Balta1701]

It happened on Clinton's watch.  It was his responsibility to respond.  If Bush had responded two+ years after the fact you would have screamed bloody murder.  I'll tell you something, in all honesty.  The rhetoric you guys put out here has about driven me to the point that I won't even consider voting for any democrat for any office.

Except of course, according to the 9/11 commission, we didn't really have good, solid evidence about who did the bombing, evidence that we felt would have held up in court, until like Jan/Feb of 01.

 

Edit: Let me add in, Clinton probably had enough preliminary evidence to respond in Dec of 00, and he didn't. That was a mistake, but it's much more of one in hindsight. Both Clinton and Bush had ample opportunities to respond.

Edited December 30, 2005 by Balta1701

[Rex Kickass]

It happened on Clinton's watch.  It was his responsibility to respond.  If Bush had responded two+ years after the fact you would have screamed bloody murder.  I'll tell you something, in all honesty.  The rhetoric you guys put out here has about driven me to the point that I won't even consider voting for any democrat for any office.

If messageboard rhetoric is what influences your vote, maybe its best that you just stay home on election day.

[YASNY]

If messageboard rhetoric is what influences your vote, maybe its best that you just stay home on election day.

 

No. Absolutely not. I'm getting a first class view of what all you liberals represent. I'll be at the voting booth, you can bet your ass on that.

[Rex Kickass]

Yes what all us liberals represent. You don't have the first clue about what liberals represent. You really don't.

 

Every time it tries to get explained about what a genuine conservative or liberal actually represents in this forum, it just gets shat on - because people would rather have their own opinion uncluttered by fact, or perspective.

 

And that's fine. And it goes for both sides.

 

Nobody listens because it gets in the way of their pissing match. It's sad really.

[WCSox]

I'll tell you something, in all honesty.  The rhetoric you guys put out here has about driven me to the point that I won't even consider voting for any democrat for any office.

 

I'd never say never. There are some really good Dems out there (Liberman, Bayh, Richardson, to name a few). Unfortunately, the party has changed significantly over the past three or four years. I mean, my God, Howard Dean is their face now. I can't imagine how many moderates he, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, etc. have alienated.

[YASNY]

Yes what all us liberals represent. You don't have the first clue about what liberals represent. You really don't.

 

Every time it tries to get explained about what a genuine conservative or liberal actually represents in this forum, it just gets shat on - because people would rather have their own opinion uncluttered by fact, or perspective.

 

And that's fine. And it goes for both sides.

 

Nobody listens because it gets in the way of their pissing match. It's sad really.

 

That's exactly what has me turned off about listening to anything from "the other side". There have been issues on here over the months that I have changed my stance on. There have been others that I came into the fray agreeing with basic liberal stance. But, I see none of that openmindedness from the devout liberals on here. None. It's made me take more of a hardline conservative stance just to combat the rhetoric.

 

Now, as I type all this, I realize that I'm becoming what has pissed me off. Screw that. It's not worth it. I'm going to step back and try to be more openminded again. You guys blather your always anti-Bush pro-liberal garbage, and if one you ever makes a point that not based on the party line, I'll consider it.

[Rex Kickass]

I'd never say never.  There are some really good Dems out there (Liberman, Bayh, Richardson, to name a few).  Unfortunately, the party has changed significantly over the past three or four years.  I mean, my God, Howard Dean is their face now.  I can't imagine how many moderates he, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, etc. have alienated.

John Murtha is against abortion and gun control. He supports the death penalty. Voted for Bush's Energy policy, given about a 50% rating by both the ACLU and the Christian Coalition. That would make him, by definition, a moderate.

[WCSox]

John Murtha is against abortion and gun control. He supports the death penalty. Voted for Bush's Energy policy, given about a 50% rating by both the ACLU and the Christian Coalition. That would make him, by definition, a moderate.

 

He was a moderate before his idiotic "cut-and-run" speech. Now he looks a lot more like a tool of the left.

[CrimsonWeltall]

I guess his stances on every other issue is irrelevant because if you'd like to begin withdrawing troops, you're automatically a far leftist.

 

WHAT A TOOL FOR GIVING HIS OPINION

[WCSox]

I guess his stances on every other issue is irrelevant because if you'd like to begin withdrawing troops, you're automatically a far leftist. 

 

No, it would mean that you just don't understand or care about the consequences of withdrawing all troops immediately. Murtha's speech was a stupid knee-jerk reaction and I'll bet that one of the higher-up Dems put him up to it.

 

WHAT A TOOL FOR GIVING HIS OPINION

 

Given his political record up to that point, it didn't sound like his opinion at all.

Edited December 31, 2005 by WCSox

[CrimsonWeltall]

No, it would mean that you just don't understand or care about the consequences of withdrawing all troops immediately.

 

Murtha's proposal would withdraw troops at the earliest practicable date and would keep marines in the region (just not in Iraq). You act like he proposed that every soldier be put on a boat and sent back to the US the next day.

[WCSox]

Murtha's proposal would withdraw troops at the earliest practicable date and would keep marines in the region (just not in Iraq).  You act like he proposed that every soldier be put on a boat and sent back to the US the next day.

 

Murtha said nothing about waiting until the time was right to remove the troops: "The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home." The "bring them home" part was later spun by his staff to mean "we'll put them somewhere else in the Middle East." Murtha never said anything about keeping the troops somewhere nearby in the region. And even if he did propose that, it'd be a stupid idea because the troops can't really fight the terrorists within Iraq if they're not there anymore.

 

Whatever you think of the war, this type of rhetoric is irresponsible. Pushing to yank the troops out now while Iraq's military is in its infancy would do nothing but destabilize the region.

[CrimsonWeltall]

Murtha said nothing about waiting until the time was right to remove the troops: "The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home." The "bring them home" part was later spun by his staff to mean "we'll put them somewhere else in the Middle East."

 

Both points were directly stated in his proposition which was never voted on.

[Texsox]

Pushing to yank the troops out now while Iraq's military is in its infancy would do nothing but destabilize the region.

 

Is the region stabalized now?