Current News and Media Videos

Dennis Ryerson, editor of The Indianapolis Star, wrote a blazing editorial defending traditional media for not getting the story on John Edwards’ affair before the tabloids did.

Rather than just tell you what he said, I’d rather let you read it for yourself. It’s a rather funny read, only it’s not so funny. It’s tragic. Ryerson would have been better off just writing a three word editorial, “Sorry, we failed.” Nope. Not gonna happen. Instead, we get a string of rationalizations, excuses, and a veneer of respectable standards set against those scalawags on the Internet. Here’s Ryerson’s 30 years of blissful experience:

Anybody can post anything on the Internet. A lot of good information shows up but a lot of lies, innuendoes and outright falsities surface as well.

That never happens to print media, does it? Anyone remember Jayson Blair? Oh, how quickly we forget, Mr. Ryerson. This is funny because just prior to his comment, Ryerson said this:

Those who say the media are biased on this one conveniently forget who did in Gary Hart during his Democratic presidential run. They forget all those front-page stories about Monica Lewinsky and Bill Clinton. They forget Wilbur Mills and Wayne Hayes and Brock Adams, all Democratic leaders brought down when sex-related indiscretions were exposed by the mainstream media.

It’s not that Democratic politicians have cornered the market on infidelity. Rather, people remember what they want to remember and forget what they want to forget in order to further their own bias.

I agree, and Dennis Ryerson is the perfect example. Let’s continue:

At The Star, as is the case with every newspaper for which I’ve worked, it’s not easy to get a story published. We go through layers of editors. At our morning and afternoon news meetings, questions are asked. Stories are held, sometimes for days, until we are convinced we get it right.

Do we have the facts? Are we relying on word of mouth or verifiable information? Are our sources reliable? Do we have not just facts but all of the facts to provide proper perspective?

Even then we make mistakes, which I regret. But our goal is to print the facts and nothing more.

I’ve been a journalist too. I’ve won awards for my journalism. I know that newspapers don’t just print the facts. They also print opinions. That’s why they have editorial pages. But Ryerson’s comment is designed to imply that bloggers don’t report the facts. Tabloids don’t report the facts. OK, maybe tabloids get it wrong more often than they should. Newspapers and TV reporters aren’t perfect either. But you don’t here bloggers bloviating about how much better we are to newspaper reporters because our facts are better. That’s just plain nonsense.

Ryerson’s argument can be boiled down to this: Because we didn’t have the facts, we didn’t print them. In fact, we didn’t print anything. We didn’t have the facts.

Well, Ryerson evidently doesn’t know what a fact is. In his mind, as the “superior” journalist, a fact is something that is verifiable and undeniable. In other words, since no one knew for sure that Edwards had an affair then they couldn’t report it. But what they actually had was an allegation of an affair. The allegation was, in actuality, a fact. It always is. Someone said something. Someone alleged something. It actually happened. It really happened that someone alleged that someone else did something. Now maybe what was alleged didn’t happen, but the allegation itself is a fact and for the media to ignore the allegation is not the same as “sticking with the facts.” This is convenient doublespeak.

News reporters often report rumors. Someone alleged that Senator Larry Craig solicited gay sex in a men’s room at an airport. The media reported that before it was known that he actually did. It was just an allegation. And as the story unfolded, the media told more of the facts. It could have been that the story totally turned out to be unfounded. It often happens. Allegations are made then they are proven false. All along the way, reputable media organizations report the facts as they are known. But not in the case of the Edwards affair.

Here’s more Ryerson:

In my more than three decades in the business, barely a year has gone by that I haven’t heard of some alleged personal indiscretion committed by one politician or another. Few such tips become news stories because those misbehaviors are so enormously difficult to prove.

In most cases laws aren’t broken so there is no string of public records to follow. Often, it’s one person’s word against another. And if we don’t have our facts, who is hurt? Not just some public official, but wives and husbands, sons and daughters.

So yes, I plead guilty. We will be less inclined to report these kinds of stories than the average supermarket tabloid.

OK, I get it. People make false allegations. That’s true. It happens all the time. They’ll allege that such-and-such politician is pro abortion when in fact he simply believes that a woman has a right to make her own choices in that matter. False allegations. Still reported.

People sometimes allege that a politician is for higher taxes when in fact the politician just wants to impose a new tax on a certain group of people for whatever reason. In many cases, those new taxes won’t affect the majority of citizens. False allegations. Still reported.

The fact of the matter is that the traditional news media didn’t pursue the story. Is it possible that maybe they were hoping John Edwards would be the vice presidential pick and therefore conveniently neglected to pursue the facts? Then - then - when it became evident that the facts could no longer be denied and that Edwards might not have a chance at the veep position anyway - then, OK, then we’ll report the facts along with our insipid apologies. Do you think that’s possible?

Oh, and here’s the kicker:

But public officials beware. The Technoworld, for all its assets, also creates something of a Wild West Internet atmosphere. Anybody with a notion of some misdeed has more of an opportunity to report it, to me and my colleagues at The Star with our set of standards, to the National Enquirer with its set of standards, or directly on the Internet without attention to any set of standards.

Wonderful. They’ve got standards. We don’t. Of course, how many news stories have been broken by Internet journalists? The Smoking Gun, Matt Drudge, Huffington Post … these sub-standard news organizations routinely report stories much quicker and more accurately than traditional media do.

Let’s fact it. Traditional print media is out. New media is in. People trust online sources more than print sources. We’ve been losing interest in print news for a long time now. Dan Rather’s mishap on Bush’s National Guard record wasn’t a first. People have been losing faith in traditional media for years and the reason why is because journalists fail at reporting accurately and timely and now the word is out. These virtues that Ryerson is claiming, all bogus. They aren’t virtues. They’re excuses. And we’re not accepting them.

One criticism of news media in recent years has been that most of it is owned by just a handful of media kingpins. But Cox News, one of the largest media organizations in the country, is out to dispel that rumor. They’re selling off newspapers.

You can read the official announcement, in the form of a news article on one of Cox’s own newspapers, right here.

Meanwhile, over at Crooks and Liars, swiftboater Jerome Corsi takes one in the balls. Maybe Cox News would be interested in selling him.

If you’ve been reading the news much in the last couple of days then you’ve likely heard that the Democratic Party is having a little “friction” regarding the Clintons’ role in the upcoming party convention. Hey, what’s the news without a little friction, right?

Well, according to presidential hopeful Barack Obama, that friction is just plain fiction. And if he has anything to do with it, he’s going to ease the friction, and the fiction, by going to Hawaii.

Good plan. This man has an entirely different temperament than our current commander-in-chief, who seems to be as adept at his own brand of fiction as anyone in media circles. Is Obama right? Are the media creating fiction or is there real friction in the Democratic Party?

In there area where I live there are a lot of small town newspapers. I am close enough to Gettysburg, Pennsylvania to be fortunate enough to see a lot of good historic stuff. Reenactments, tours, visitors, museums, and even the annual Gettysburg Bike Week. I also write the local Gettysburg Blog.

During the course of writing my blog I subscribe to Google Alerts that use the word Gettysburg in any form. Whether it be Gettysburg alone, Gettysburg, Pa. or Gettysburg Pennsyania, I want to see it. I also subscribe to Google Alerts for both York County and Adams County. Interestingly, the paper that I see the most stories in for anything related to Gettysburg or Adams County is the Hanover Evening Sun. Bear in mind, of course, that Hanover is located in York County.

I have often found a story related to Gettysburg that I found in the Hanover Evening Sun that I didn’t find in the Gettysburg Times, the paper that covers Gettysburg. I find this to be rather fascinating. Stories that I’d expect to see in the Times don’t end up there and stories that shouldn’t appear in the Evening Sun do. That brings up a very interesting question, How do local newspaper editors choose what is important enough for their local newspapers?

First, Tim Russert died. Now, his replacement has been announced: Mark Whitaker. But that isn’t the only change in news personalities that is its worth being news. On another front, political commentator Robert Novak is suspending his news program due to a brain tumor. Last week he struck a pedestrian while driving and claimed later that he didn’t know he had hit someone. Ouch!

What do these changes in news and media personalities - long time icons in the news business - represent? Is this symbolic of a major change in direction for the news in America?

Novak was a popular addition to Pat Buchanan’s “Crossfire” before going off on his own. I’m not sure what this means in terms of where the news business is headed, but I’m sure it marks a real change. The only question is, Will that change be good?

I noticed the headline of a recent news story on The Smoking Gun website. It lambasted my eyes with repetitive Ps. Now, as a poet, I have no problem with alliteration. I use it often. But what about news stories trying to tell the news and attract advertisers?

The story is about Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie hanging out (just how much hanging out was going on was not detailed) at their home when a member of the dastardly paparazzi snapped their photo. Now, the Pitts are suing. It seems journalists can’t use high-powered equipment to capture the news from afar any more. At least, that’s the argument the Pitt attorney is making. Since his clients were on private property they deserve some privacy. Makes sense to me.

But what about that headline? Here it is for your viewing pleasure:

Pitt Peeved Over Paparazzi Pix

Nice play on words. Pitt (pet) Peeved is followed by another double-P phrase - Paparazzi Pix - to show how photographers exploit celebrities for a few cheap shots. Well, I guess that’s a good reason to be peeved. But you don’t have to bop us over the head with it, do ya?

Have you watched network tv lately? They have a reality show about everything. Lobster fishing, crabbing, disgusting food, hairstylists, and every other profession seems to be getting a reality show now.

Why? Would people really rather watch some crab fisherman than great sitcoms like they used to create? Sitcoms like Cheers, Friends, Everybody Loves Raymond, Two and a Half Men, and others have audiences that loved them. Other shows like CSI, Law And Order, The Shield, and more also have loyal audiences.

So what is the real reason there are so many reality shows popping up on every tv channel? They are checp to produce. No actors to pay. No script writers. No real talented Directors needed. The networks are cutting their expenses and that is why we have reality shows. They figure that the couch potatos who like to watch tv will adapt and just watch whatever they fill the time slots with.

The reason they have to cut expenses is that the Internet is taking couch potatos away from them and turning them into office-chair or computer desk potatos.

The second way you can notice how networks are reacting to the Internet is the number of commercials they show now. Commercial breaks used to consist of 3-4 commercials in a row. Now it is more like 7 in a row, then we have to sit through 2 more about what shows that channel has coming up later.

Recently the new tv series, In Plain Sight was started. The commercials announcing the upcoming show were being shown 6 months before the first episode was even scheduled to air. In January, they were showing commercials about the great new show they will give us in June. Wow.

So TV Is reacting to the Internet stealing their customers by cutting their production budget and by selling more and more commercials for each show, and by advertising their own programs more than ever before.

There is another indicator that network tv is dying out. The number of infomercials has risen dramatically. In the wee hours of the morning and late at night and on the weekends, we used to be able to find a few shows, repeats, and other things to watch even though there were always a few infomercials. Now it’s 90% infomercials, 10% something to watch.

Now how are newspapers reacting to the Internet?

More and more people are getting their news from news websites and blogs. Many of them get their daily news in their news reader through rss feeds. Commuters are using their laptops and handhelds and cell phones to get news from the Internet. Now you don’t see nearly as many newspapers being read on trains, buses, and subways.

So their sales of advertising is down because their readership is down. What does the newspaper industry do about it?

Almost two-thirds of American newspapers publish less foreign news than they did just three years ago, nearly as many print less national news, and despite new demands on newsrooms like blogs and video, most of them have smaller news staffs, according to a new study.

Sixty-four percent of the newspapers reported cutting the space given to foreign news over three years, making that the area that has suffered at the most papers as the business contracts. Only 10 percent of the editors said they considered foreign news “very essential” to their papers.

Ahh, first let’s give readers less news. Good start. TV gives us less TV shows worth watching, so newspapers will give us less news to read. Follow the leader? At a time when more and more of the news that affects us every day is about dependence on foreign oil, the war in Iraq, the war on terrorism in other countries, how our allies are reacting to things we do, and foriegn money markets as well as foriegn currency vs the US Dollar, and other international issues, the newspapers have decided less is more.

Three-fifths of the papers reported having less space for news over all, as newspapers try to save money by shifting to smaller pages and printing fewer of them. The only area cut nearly as often as foreign news was national news, which declined at 57 percent of the papers. Business coverage ranked next, reduced by one-third of the papers.

Yeah, let’s cut out that pesky national news too.

Half of all papers said they had increased the amount of state and local news they published, especially “hyper-local” community news.

Pretty soon maybe there will be an opening to start your own newspaper. The Elm Street Times or the Baker Ave. Post.

At 59 percent of the newspapers, editors said news staffing had declined over the previous three years, and that was true at 85 percent of the large papers. In the months since the survey was taken, the nation’s major newspaper chains have made some of the deepest newsroom cuts on record.

Save your old newspapers and recordings of your favorite tv shows. They could be worth a lot of money on eBay someday soon.

The New Yorker, you no doubt have heard by now, satirized popular misconceptions about Obama and wife Michelle’s identity on its most recent cover.

Initially, Barack Obama called the cover “tasteless,” but his most recent comment, on Larry King Live, was an acknowledgment of the First Amendment and he essentially said that the satire fell on its face, but The New Yorker has its rights.

I’m not sure why this has ever been an issue. Literary magazines have always been involved in satire. Some magazines are nothing but satire. Others include satire in their daily mix. The best magazines use satire as a way to deliver an important message. The New Yorker cover was just making fun of stupid people who really believe that stuff about Obama. It’s point is to highlight the ignorance and blatant ridiculousness of a certain mindset. And Obama himself expressed some dismay, something I’d have expected from the unrefined McCain. But I’m glad the leading Democrat finally pulled his head out of his arse and saw the light. Now can all get back to taking things seriously.

Here’s an interesting blog post that brings up some ethical questions regarding contemporary news practices at the local level. Maybe ethics isn’t the right word, but propriety.

The real question, though, is not so much what the media did, but what parade organizers allowed. Didn’t someone approve the floats? Who was in charge of this parade? Didn’t someone tell these folks to leave that mess at home?

In order for these floats to have made it into the parade someone had to pay an entry fee (I’m guessing) and someone had to line them up in the right order and give them the go ahead to march. Who did that?

The interesting thing about this parade is its 100-year-old traditions. According to one community member:

The floats were part of the parade which has “been in existence for over 100 years and a portion of the parade is designed to poke fun at local and national events,” the committee said.

So if the parade is designed to poke fun at local and national events, does that include teen pregnancy? Does it include a particular act by a particular individual even if it is a teenager? Should the local media “report” on such an event and show the video footage of the “tasteless” acts by those in the parade?

These are all legitimate questions, but it seems to me that if this is a community event and it is designed to poke fun of the culture at large then it has done precisely what its objective is. Offensive? Sure, considering the nature of the culture, how could we expect otherwise?

Wesley Clark, a Democrat and retired military officer, told CNN host John Roberts that he honors John McCain’s service as a hero and political of war but that McCain hasn’t held any level of executive responsibility that required making tough decisions like when to attack and when not to attack enemies in combat. Is what Clark said true? Sure. But that doesn’t stop the media from mischaracterizing his comments.

Media Matters, a media watchdog organization, lists these mischaracterizations by top media personalities on its website:

Examples of media echoing this false claim include the following:

* In a July 1 article, Washington Post staff writers Jonathan Weisman and Michael D. Shear quoted comments Clark made about McCain during his Face the Nation interview after asserting that McCain “pushed back hard against criticism of his own record as a Navy flier and a prisoner of war.”

* On the June 30 edition of The Situation Room, guest host John Roberts said that “Clark took a weekend hit at McCain, targeting his history as a war hero and his possible future as president.” Roberts made the assertion despite the fact that immediately afterward, Roberts aired video of Clark saying during his Face the Nation appearance, “I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands of millions of others in the Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn’t held executive responsibility.”

* In a July 1 washingtonpost.com column, Post media critic Howard Kurtz asserted that “Clark used an appearance on ‘Face the Nation’ Sunday to strafe John McCain over his Vietnam War record.” Kurtz later stated: “No one’s saying that being a POW entitles you to the Oval Office or places you above criticism. But Barack Obama frequently prefaces his criticism of McCain with a nod to his honorable service. Which raises the question: What was Wes thinking?” But Clark’s statement, “I don’t think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president” — quoted by Kurtz in the column and highlighted (and mischaracterized) by several media outlets and figures as controversial — is itself an argument that McCain’s military service does not “entitle[]” him “to the Oval Office.”

Considering that journalists are supposed to be objective and report the facts, don’t you think that they should watch the video of John Roberts asking the question and Wesley Clark answering it. That would clear up any confusion, wouldn’t it?

See and hear it for yourself. Here’s the video: