Why I Don't Read Murdoch's New York Post

Sometimes when you read Google News a headline catches your eye and you feel compelled to check it out. Former NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw was in an accident Friday afternoon. I didn't like the sensationalistic turn on some of the headlines but the Post surprised me by having what seemed a reasonable headline, "Tom Brokaw OK after Car Crash on Bruckner Expressway." So I thought I would check it out.

The Post writer, Kirsten Fleming, was doing fine until near the end of the story:

"Tom and Meredith are greatly saddened by this loss of life," said a flak for the newsman and his wife in a statement issued this afternoon.

Flak? I can see that in catty political commentary I suppose, but in a straight news story, particularly one that involved a tragedy? Somebody died in an accident immediately in front of the Brokaws and its lucky nothing happened to them too. No wonder the Post has a low reputation.

Actually, in retrospect I have other problems with the story but I'll let others who know the Post cover that. In this holiday season I hope drivers and writers slow down and think a bit—and please tie down those Christmas trees and loose cables.

The Continuing Uselessness of Sam Donaldson

The news is that Barack Obama is drawing large crowds. The news is that Barack Obama has something to say. In fact, the news is that most of the Democratic candidates (though Edwards and Obama in particular as far I'm concerned) have something to say. The news is that there is a leadership vacuum in Washington. The news is that the Republicans have run out of ideas. The news is that there are growing problems that the United States is facing while the Bush Administration pretends they don't exist. The news is that Democrats are beginning to focus on these problems and talking about solutions.

According to Sam Donaldson, however, the news is that a couple of old gentlemen fell asleep during Barack Obama's speech in Missouri in front of a crowd of 3,000 people. Here's the story:

A potentially embarrassing moment was caught on tape during a speech by Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama on Saturday. Video taken of the event in Kansas City, Mo. appeared to show at least two audience members sleeping.

Approximately 3,000 people attended the fundraiser for Obama, who is challenging Hillary Clinton and a handful of others for the Democratic nomination in 2008. ...

(snip)

A video clip of the event that aired on ABC News showed two older gentlemen sitting in the crowd, with eyes closed.

During a roundtable discussion on Sunday morning, commentator Sam Donaldson even pointed out the potentially embarrassing screen capture...

On one level, what an extraordinary non-story! This is the best that Sam Donaldson can offer his viewers? This is journalism? This is the kind of analysis that Sam Donaldson is being paid some 7 figures for? It's embarrassing to American journalism.

On another level, there is a major story here. It's evidence once again of useless overpaid journalists who have been asleep for the last twenty years. Edward R. Murrow is turning over in his grave. This is what he fought for?

Does Sam Donaldson understand the problems facing the United States? Does he understand the enormity of Bush's failures? Does he understand the growing energy crisis which has been largely ignored for the last thirty years and is now coming home to roost? Does he understand global warming? Does he understand what a fiasco Bush has given us in Iraq? Does he understand the growing economic stress Americans are facing? Does he understand there is a connection between economic stress and the desire to fix healthcare? Does he understand the complete uselessness of the current president? Does he understand the growing vulnerability of America's economy and strength? Does Sam Donaldson understand that the growing imbalance between the wealthy and everybody else is not healthy for our democracy? Does he understand there are people who believe we can tackle some of these problems? Does he understand the need to find capable people? Does he understand how bereft of ideas the current Republican Party is these days? No, Sam Donaldson would rather talk about a couple of older gentlemen who fell asleep during a speech. And people wonder why bloggers are disgusted with so much of the mainstream media.

The Special Universe of the Media

There are good reporters out there but one of the problems of the last fifteen years is a media that often doesn't hear itself when it says things that show it isn't paying attention. Politicians apologize but it is rare to hear journalists do so.

Kagro X of Daily Kos heard an exchange of reporters while sitting in on the Libby trial:

The discussion among the reporters present that day was of Joe Biden's Obama flub. It was generally agreed that the statements were an embarrassment. ...

One reporter, with not even the slightest hint of irony, turns to the others, declares Biden's candidacy as good as dead, and then says, essentially: Who's gonna vote for him? He just runs around saying dumb stuff. Who wants to vote for a president who's just gonna say dumb stuff for four years?

That ladies and gentlemen speaks volumes in year seven of the George W. Bush presidency.

More on John Edwards Entering Presidential Race

One thing I like about the internet is that we're not so dependent on what two or three news sources say about a news event, particularly when that even is so open to interpretation and spin, such as when someone enters a presidential race. For years, I got tired of twenty-second sound bites announcing a candidate, or those jaded pieces by big name print journalists talking more about what their colleagues think than what a candidate says.

On Truthout there's one piece from AP that gets close to being jaded:

Edwards' "town hall" Friday night was his eighth Nevada visit since the 2004 election, his sixth this year.

He called for universal health care and said his health plan, along with anti-poverty efforts, would take priority over deficit reduction if he was elected.

He called for an immediate withdrawal of 40,000-50,000 troops in Iraq and said his vote authorizing the president to go to war was a "mistake."

His call for a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants won tepid applause, and one loud boo. His proposal to require those immigrants to learn English was cheered.

(snip)

State GOP chairman Paul Adams dismissed the former senator as a has-been.

"When all is said and done, Nevada has already rejected Edwards once, it will do it again," Adams said.

(snip)

Edwards appearance in Portsmouth, N.H., earlier Friday drew about 800 people, about half the number who came out to see Obama on his first trip to the state.

Edwards said the turnout showed he still had lots of friends in New Hampshire. Many stood in line for more than an hour only to be turned away because there was no room.

The last two paragraphs I quoted are amusing. Half the audience of Barack Obama—but so many people turned up they had to turn some away? What? There's a place for objective news but this is uninspired reporting and, in the end, not all that objective. John Edwards is a fine candidate and if Barack Obama decides to run, he'll be a fine candidate as well. Let's hear what they have to say.

And what was the point of getting a quote from the local Republican official in Nevada? I'm fairly sure he didn't attend the event and therefore shouldn't be quoted on what Edwards is saying. Dismissing Edwards as a has-been is purely political but it would be useful to put such a statement in context. Bush and the Republican Party are exhausted of ideas and have given the American people a disaster in Iraq and a disaster in New Orleans and just lost the 2006 election. A growing number of people know who the has-beens are. Actually, there was a man who was the vice presidential candidate in the 1920 election; he was on the losing ticket and was regarded as a has-been for several years. His name? Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

So it's a pleasure to find a article about John Edwards that takes a more positive view, even if it's mildly partisan; here's an item from Bob Geiger on The Huffington Post:

In the backyard of a Hurricane Katrina victim in New Orleans' 9th Ward, former Senator and Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards announced today that he is running for the Democratic presidential nomination. And, in what can be better characterized as a talk than a formal political speech, Edwards changed the dynamic of the fledgling Democratic race for 2008 with both the tone and substance of his message.

(snip)

...Americans are bone-tired of disliking and disrespecting their president and, I believe, are unusually anxious to begin the presidential season to, if nothing else, give them the feeling that a change is coming sooner than later. People hungered for a change in the Congress and made it happen -- now that strong desire to take out the trash moves to the executive branch of government.

Second, Edwards is starting his campaign in an interesting way by making it not about him personally, but about the problems of the world, the loss of global American prestige, our domestic strife and the extent to which his campaign is about getting people to make change now and not wait for the actions of a newly-elected president.

I appreciate Mr. Geiger giving us something to think about and something more alive than an article following a recipe for conventional reporting that in the end isn't all that informative.

The Perils of Conventional Wisdom

One of the things I'm learning about the presidential candidates, whether Republican or Democrat, is that various sources don't seem to spend much time learning who the candidates are. But they're very good at picking the conventional wisdom about candidates. I doubt that does the voters much good.

Here's an example of too much conventional wisdom from Ken Rudin of NPR's Political Junkie:

On paper, this should be a wide-open race for the nomination. But there is suddenly the realization that if your first name is not Hillary or Barack, it will be very difficult to get noticed. And that may be behind Bayh's decision to not run.

The star power of Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has never been in question. Instead, the great unknown was who would be the alternative? ...

(snip)

Then, some 10 days after Warner said no, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois said on NBC's Meet the Press that he was leaving the door open for a possible run. ...

It might be worth mentioning that the first primary is over a year away. I suspect the voters will be reluctant to annoint someone, or even two people, before the first vote. Of course, the Republicans pretty much did that to George W. Bush seven years ago and look at what a fiasco he's been.



The Center for Media and Democracy offers a rundown on both Democratic and Republican candidates with links to a quick sketch of each candidate. There's some minor omissions (they ignore Mike Gravel) but it's worth a quick look. They say Condoleezza Rice has bailed out; I confess I didn't know that but then I never took her seriously anyway.

Joe Biden, by the way, had a trip to New Hampshire over the weekend and he's all but in the race and expects to make a formal announcement in the next few weeks.