According to Media Matters, yes:

It seems to me that “the Maverick” isn’t so maverick any more. He hardly ever says what he really thinks. He just delivers the GOPs talking points and he sounds more like George W. Bush now than G.W. does, except for perhaps the stupid verbal gaffes. I know beneath all of that tough exterior is a melon of a man just dying to say what’s really on his mind. He could explode any day now and it’s my hope that he’ll eventually tell the Republican Party to just go ‘F’ itself. Then I might vote for him. Media love or not.

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?

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.

One of Hillary Clinton’s top advisers, Howard Wolfson, is being hired by Fox News to be a Democratic Analyst. Of course, Fox News has one of the biggest TV audiences in the world today. Accused of being conservative and a front for the Republican Party, it could be a surprise to many that a Democrat is heading over to Fox News to become a member of the team. But Fox News already has a few Democrats on its team. Both Alan Colmes, who co-hosts a show with Sean Hannity that highlights both of their names, and Juan Williams are members of the Fox News team.

Alan Colmes, though, isn’t the best spokesman for the Democratic cause. He is frequently outdebated by Sean Hannity despite the fact that the latter is a hack journalist with little skill himself. Colmes appears weak next to Hannity and Fox News undoubtedly has him on staff to make Hannity look good. Williams typically appears opposite conservative analysts as a guest and is strong in some areas, but isn’t exactly the most aggressive of liberal analysts on TV himself.

But what about Wolfson? Well, Hillary lost. Does that say something?

Fox News claims to be unbiased in its news and uses the tagline “Fair and Balanced”, though it is neither. Wolfson claims that he wants to be a spokesman for the progressive cause on Fox News because many of its viewers are independent and someone needs to appeal to that audience for the upcoming election. Yeah, right.

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:

Tim Russert has been a news icon since 1991. His death will change it even more, not for the better but for the worse.

I have enjoyed watching him drill political leaders on his weekly shoe Meet The Press for so long that it seems like a part of my life that shouldn’t go missing. More than almost any other journalist, Russert was dogged and determined. You could see it in his eyes every time you tuned in to his show. And I admired his ability to ask the right question at the right time of the right person. I also enjoyed watching them squirm in their seats when he asked it. To me, he represents what journalism is all about.

Russert was not the first Meet the Press voice and face. He won’t be the last. But I think he was the best. I wasn’t around in the early days of Meet the Press, but I can’t imagine that any of his forebears were anywhere near the journalist that he was. I can remember Marvin Kalb and Chris Wallace. I don’t believe I early watched Garrick Utley, who served in Russert’s capacity from 1989-1991 and there is undoubtedly a reason for that. But Kalb and Wallace, though both excellent newsmen, couldn’t hold a candle to Russert. Tim Russert was a dog and when he bit he bit hard. May he rest in peace.

Is it becoming more difficult to survive as a TV journalist? One might think so, and if you get a chance then you might ask E.D. Hill of America’s Pulse. I hear she had a hand on it, but the word is she was cutting off the circulation.

In print journalism, there has always been evidence if a reporter was skewing a story a certain way, omitting essential facts, or editorializing. You just simply had to look at the story. And if it was bad enough then someone complained.

With TV news, it was a little bit more difficult. If you didn’t watch a particular news segment then you only had someone’s word for it. And that someone likely didn’t have a transcript of the program to back up any allegations. The news station had the transcripts and if you wanted a copy then you had to pay for it. Even if you videotaped a news segment, there was always some question as to how you could use it without violating a copyright law.

But with the advent of the Internet, the rules have changed. This story from Wired Magazine illustrates just how TV news is no longer immune from accusations of editorializing and bad news judgment. News personalities now have a mechanism in place to hold them accountable, like it or not.

Anyone can video a news segment and upload it to YouTube within minutes. The record speaks for itself. And if a journalist is out of line, makes a comment that is unfair or which characterizes a party in the news then everyone in the world will witness it within a matter of minutes. There can be no backtracking, guffawing, or smoke blowing. It’s all out in the open and the journalist must decide to offer a public statement or let his comments ride. And that’s the way it should be.

Conservatives who claim that the news has a liberal bias can prove it. Liberals who claim that the news has a bias toward the power structure, which is allegedly conservative, can prove it. Or we can just sit back and watch it all play out on YouTube and let the chips fall where they may.

Photo courtesy of FoxNews

For 25 minutes, a Canadian truck driver in Edmonton, Alberta drove into oncoming traffic at excessive speeds, clipping oncoming vehicles and sending others off the road before crashing into a rail, hurdling over an abutment then crashing and exploding onto the train tracks below.

The media footage was captured by an eyewitness’ video camera. United Press International reported that the man may have had a medical condition which contributed to the horrifying incident.

A witness of Monday’s afternoon crash described the driver to reporters as looking “mad,” “angry” and “zoned out. He was basically slumped down, head down, bobbing around, arms hanging down at his side,” Dave Hybeck told FOX News.

The driver, identified as 25-year-old Mark Santos, was an insulin-dependent diabetic and the driver’s brother, Jordan Santos said he’s been around his brother when he’s gone into hypoglycemia and he would be confused and sleepy.

The Edmonton Police are investigating the accident and an autopsy is scheduled later in the week.

I predict there will be a day when most of what you read in the mainstream press will come from a blog or somewhere else on the Internet.

Some people will read that prediction and say, “They already are”. Some will say, “Duh. I knew that”. And other people will say, “This guy is out of his mind. That will never happen”.

Some people call it Blogging. Some call it the New Media. Some call it Citizen Journalism. But anyone who doesn’t think of blogging as legitimate journalism is in for a rude awakening.

Blogs Influence Journalists, Nearly all Facets of News Coverage

Blogs are not only having an impact on the speed and availability of news but also influencing the tone and editorial direction of reporting, according to a survey of US journalists by Brodeur, a unit of Omnicom Group.

New media (social media and blogs) are having an impact on many aspects of reporting, particularly the speed and availability of news, Brodeur said.

Newspaper fell behind tv news because newspapers can’t bring you up-to-the minute news. TV news will fall behind or already has fallen behind the New Media, Blogs, because they can’t get the news any faster than bloggers can and journalists don’t get it as fast in many instances.

Another thing to point out is that there are a lot of bloggers who go much further in depth on a story and are more dogged in tracking down sources than journalists are. Bloggers don’t have a publisher with an agenda. Bloggers don’t have a marketing department that tells them the type of stories they need on the front page to sell newspapers.

Citizen Journalism critics say that bloggers are not as reliable as reporters. That’s bunk. It has been a very very long time since journalists who work for newspapers and TV stations were reliable sources for news.

From NYTimes reporters who plagiarized stories to those journalists who President Bush paid to write favorable stories about his No Child Left Behind education policies, journalists in the mainstream press have repeatedly shown they are no more reliable than the average joe who writes a news blog.

Now all newspapers and TV news shows are seen as far left or far right by people. Fox news is seen as far right and CNN as far left. In talk radio you have the al franken’s VS the rush limbaughs.

So the news we get on radio, TV, and newspapers is not unbiased, fair, or balanced as all of these claim they are. Add that to the fact they are owned by mega news corporations that have their own political, social, and marketing agendas and you cannot possibly be still under the impression that the mainstream media is more reliable than citizen journalists who write blogs.

Yes blogs can be slanted far left or far right as well. Usually they are much more open about that though. Fox news claims to be fair and balanced and claims they are not far right, while Redstate.org states right in their rules for posting on the site, “The purpose of this site is promote conservative and Republican ideals.”

Citizen Journalism is much more honest and straightforward about their intent than mainstream media. Mainstream Media has a bunch of lawyers, stock analysts, marketing people, and others who judge a story’s value not on how valuable that news is to the public, but how it might imact their advertisers, their stock prices, and whether or not it might get them sued.

The biggest impact of blogs is in the speed and availability of news.

Over half also said that blogs were having a significant impact on the “tone” (61.8%) and “editorial direction” (51.1%) of news reporting.

“While only a small percentage of journalists feel that blogs are helpful in generating sources or exclusives, they do see blogs as particularly useful in helping them better understand the context of a story, a new story angle, or a new story idea,” said Jerry Johnson, head of strategic planning at Brodeur, during the “Taking the Blogosphere Seriously” seminar at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.

With some mainstream journalists it has already happened. With others it will happen. They will be at a point where before they write a story or run a story in the mainstream press, they will check the blogs first to see how the public might react to that story or to get new ideas and angles for that story.

Many people who have been blogging a long time have always predicted this to happen. Now it is happening.

The Rest of The Story on journalists and bloggers here

I was reading a story today on Mashable.com that really shows how the mainstream media is scared of the new media. Their hypocracy knows no bounds.

Citizen Journalism: Dangerous and Irresponsible

Just a commnet on that headline first. That is the sentiment of the mainstream media toward bloggers of the new media. Picture Germany under Hitler for a moment. Doesn’t that look like a headline you would find in a german newspaper of that era?

story by Mark ‘Rizzn’ Hopkins

I first noticed the sentiment growing last week, when Aunt B Helen Thomas gave an interview to the Huffington Post:

Q: Do you think technology is changing [journalism]? That a good reporter will always find a venue because there are so many media outlets now?

Thomas: No, but I do think it is kind of sad when everybody who owns a laptop thinks they’re a journalist and doesn’t understand the ethics. We do have to have some sense of what’s right and wrong in this job. Of how far we can go. We don’t make accusations without absolute proof. We’re not prosecutors. We don’t assume.

Q: So if there’s this amateur league of journalists out there, trying to do what you do…

Thomas: It’s dangerous.

Dangerous? Freedom of Speech is dangerous? People who read blogs know that much of the time the blogger is writing their own opinion about the news such as I am doing here.

However, most news blogers check and attribute the sources of their information so people have the chance to research and form their own opinions. This is the new media and it is here to stay and I think mainstream media just doesn’t know what to do about it.

But look at fox news, or Faux news as many like to call it. The slant put on the topics discussed on fox news is apparent to all but the few who still believe it is fair and balances.

Fox news is nothing more than a right wing podcast you can pick up on your television. They have the hannity and Coombs blog, the bill o’reilly blog, etc. etc. Most news bloggers are at least as qualified as hannity or o’reilly to spout their opinions.

The most compelling points the Old Media seems to be making these days is that no one in the blogging community has the scruples to adhere to the “unwritten ethical principals” of the mainstream media.

I’ll give you a minute to compose yourself while you laugh out loud.

Then you can read the rest of the story here

Things That Just Piss Me Off