Sarah's Colonoscopy

I'm of two minds on Sarah Palin's colonoscopy, as Greta van

Susteren puts it. First, news organizations are cutting jobs

like crazy so why not ask for some free help? We now live

in a world where bloggers are breaking stories instead of

traditional news outlets. However, it strikes me as extremely

biased. Would these news outlets be asking for the same

type of help if the subject was President Obama? I think not!

I Have To Agree with Media Matters On This One

Fox News should not be promoting the Tea Party. As Media
Matters points out, many of the anchors of Fox News are
actively promoting the protests. Look at this ad for Cavuto's
show:



I know Cavuto and Hannity fall under category of "opinion"
journalism. However, just because one falls under category of
a opinion doesn't mean it's ethical to actively promote a
protest. How can one trust your opinion if you're entrenched
in a certain movement? How would've conservatives reacted
if MSNBC or CNN actively promoted the Iraq War protests
the way Fox News is promoting the Tea Party protests?

Rupert Murdoch himself said that Fox News should not be promoting
the Tea Party:



Fox News' promotion of the Tea Party protests is activism
journalism. I don't like activism journalism when it comes
from the Right or Left.

There Is Hope for American Journalism!

How can one be pessimistic about the future of journalism
when you hear wonderful news like this:

Three quarters of editors and news directors polled
say they have "serious reservations" about
government funding of journalism, and 78 percent
say the same thing about interest groups, primarily
for fear that independence can be compromised,
according to a study by the Pew Research Center's
Project for Excellence in Journalism.

They know if the government is funding them their paychecks
will dramatically decrease. Liberals talk up government funded
news stations like NPR, PBS, and C-SPAN but given the choice
I think they prefer watching or listening to news programs owned
by private entities.

My favorite quote from the piece:

"One thing they say is that we've got to figure this out
for ourselves," said Tom Rosenstiel, Pew's director.
"We can't wait for Big Brother to help us."

May American journalism live on (online of course)!

Why Do Nightly News Viewers Prefer Male Anchors?

It appears another female television news journalist is flopping
when it comes to anchoring the nightly news. I've expressed my
displeasure on how much focus is given to looks when it comes
to women anchors before. But there is something much deeper
than that going on here. The viewers of broadcast nightly news
tend to be older. So perhaps they are just accustomed to having
a male with that Walter Cronkite type voice.

Katie Couric and Diane Sawyer do have different styles
than their male predecessors. They are more conversational
and less formal in their presentation. Perhaps nightly news
viewers aren't looking for conversational and less formal?
That's what morning news is for! Morning news anchors
want to make you feel like your drinking a morning cup
of coffee and having a conversation. Katie Couric and Diane
Sawyer were very successful in that format.

I don't think it's sexism (at least I don't have any evidence at this
moment) because I don't think someone like Matt Lauer
would be a good anchor for a nightly news program. But
maybe that's because I'm used to seeing him in the morning?
Perhaps the secret to success in nightly news is not to do
the morning news first. Brian Williams never anchored the
Today Show.

Top Story

Why is this story not the top story in every American news organization?

Jake Tapper on Media's "Unrequited" Love Affair with Obama

"There are some of us that try to report a little more on our feet than on our
knees."

The good stuff is at 10:14

I Wonder Why?

I wonder why journalists and J-schools get labeled for being liberal
bastions? Take a look at Jeff Jarvis' and Jay Rosen's Twitter accounts,
both are journalism professors. Hey, at least they are not trying to
teach objectivity anymore!

It's a systematic problem we have in the news business. Reporters,
editors don't decide to be take a liberal slant when they get into the
news room. As Jarvis and Rosen demonstrate they are taught from
a left-wing slant the moment they step into journalism school.

Television News and the 80s

I found this article in the archives of The New York Times. The truly shocking
bit of information in the news piece was how many people trusted television news
anchors back in 1987:

Thirty-eight percent of those questioned in the poll, commissioned
by Cable News Network and U.S. News & World Report magazine,
said they trusted President Reagan, while 54 percent said they
trusted television anchors and 60 percent said they trusted their
spouses. Forty percent said they trusted their auto repairmen.

That's an awfully high number, it's actually close to the number of people who trust
their spouses. Their spouses! The person you promise to love for the rest of your life
and stay faithful to. Compare that to a poll conducted last year about media
believability. Exit questions: What happened? Can you think of an event or events
that severely damaged the credibility of the news media these past few decades?

I have a few ideas:



An exit video to enjoy:

Dear New York Times

Dear New York Times,

While you're making some necessary cuts to stay afloat make sure you
don't fire the fact checkers and your lawyers. You're gonna need them.


Sincerely,
Online News Reader

NYTImes Ad Revenue Falls 20 Percent

Picture source

The New York Times is not doing good at all. I already wrote this here but
I'll state it again: Please God no "Barbara Streisand and Friends" tele-a-thon
to save the New York Times on prime time network television.
Here's a possible song for the tele-a-thon:

Memories, light the corners of my mind
No colored photos just black and white memories of the
way we were.
Scattered pictures of the bias The New York
Times left behind, bias they never recognized.
Can it be that it was all so simple then or have our liberal
editors rewritten every line?
If we had the chance to do it all again tell me would we?
Could we?
Memories, may be beautiful and yet
what’s too painful to remember
we simply choose to not report.
So it’s the laughter we will remember
whenever we remember the way we were.

Hey, do you think the evil Bush will bailout The New York Times before he leaves
office? If that were to occur Frank Rich's and Maureen Dowd's columns
should be extremely interesting.

Internet Beats Newspapers

You better watch out television! You are becoming archaic also.
Mwahaha!

/evil Terry Ann

Don't Question John Roberts' Journalistic Integrity!

Via Newsbusters. John Roberts gets huffy puffy with Joe the Plumber when he
laughs when the news anchor insists he isn't out campaigning for anyone:



John Roberts states, "Excuse me, Joe. Why would you cast aspersions on my
journalistic integrity. I don't even know you?"

Let's take a look Roberts' journalistic integrity. I did a quick Google search and found
that Mr. Roberts isn't always fair and balanced.

Compare and contrast how Mr. Roberts interviewed Sen. John McCain and
President-elect Obama. Here's Roberts interviewing Mr. Obama:



Here is how Mr. Roberts interviewed Sen. McCain. Is it just me or was much
nicer to Mr. Obama?

Here is Mr. Roberts taking Mitt Romney to task over something he said on his
program. I can't find an opinion piece Mr. Roberts wrote negating something said
by a Democrat on his program.

Here is Mr. Roberts on the Laura Ingraham's radio program defending a piece
that appears to be severely one-sided. Although, I do give him credit for going
on the show and defending it, even if his defense was somewhat weak.

Here is a partial transcript of an interview Mr. Roberts did during the whole
Scott McClellan fiasco:

MIKE ALLEN, POLITICO.COM: Well, John, that's right. And you hear
Republicans saying things like 'pathetic' and even making fun of the title,
saying that instead of being called 'What Happened' it should be called
'What Happened?'

ROBERTS: He claims that President Bush used 'propaganda to sell the
war.' Let's look at what he says in the book. 'And his advisers confused
the propaganda campaign with the high level of candor and honesty so
fundamentally needed to build and then sustain public support during
a time of war.' He finally articulates what we all came to believe,
Mike,and further goes on to say that this war was unnecessary.

Way to stay neutral and objective, Mr. Roberts.

Here is talk show host Hugh Hewitt explaining to anchor John Roberts during
the election that the news media are highlighting Gov. Palin's gaffes and ignoring
Joe Biden gaffe's by using repetition and emphasis and Roberts doesn't seem
to understand where Hewitt is coming from. Partial transcript:

ROBERTS: So here's a question many people are asking. Why do they not
put her out there more? Since she was nominated she's done three major
network interviews, one sort of off the cuff gaggle with the traveling press
at the ground zero and she's done a couple of radio interviews including
yours. In the same period of time, Joe Biden has been out more than 90
times. He did the spin post debate Friday night after the Mississippi debate.
Why are they not putting her out there more?

HEWITT: My guess is that the charge of the light brigade is in their mind.
They know that there are literally 1,000 mainstream media reporters
representing hard left points of view in the media outlets that are
represented by the "New York Times" and the "Washington Post" and
your network and the other big networks that are waiting to ambush her.
As a result, they're going to try and gauge what the situation is out there.
They did not rush off to conservative media. They did not rush off to new
media. They simply said let's have time with the voters. Let's have some
time with John McCain to get up to speed on some crucial issues.


And Joe Biden he can go out and do 90 different interviews,
John, because no matter what he says, you guys don't care. The
other day he stood up and said FDR addressed the country on television
at the time of the great panic of 1929. Well he wasn't the president. There
wasn't television and yet Joe Biden doesn't pay any kind of price. Can
you imagine if Sarah Palin had said FDR addressed the nation on the
day of the great crash on television?


ROBERTS: In fairness, Hugh, we actually did do a piece on Joe Biden's
gaffes just the other day.



HEWITT: On Joe Biden's gaffes but on that one.


ROBERTS: Yes, we did.


HEWITT: Can you imagine what would have happened to Sarah Palin?


ROBERTS: We did mention that one.


HEWITT: Again John, it's not about mentioned. It's about the emphasis
and repetition. If Sarah Palin had said that FDR spoke on television as
president in 1929, do you doubt for a moment honestly that it would have
led every newspaper in America and would have dominated every media
broadcast for three days?

Doing a piece on Joe Biden's gaffes is not the equivalent of continually running sound
bites of Gov. Palin's gaffes. You can watch the video here.

So by doing a simple Google search I found examples of CNN's John Roberts throwing
his own journalistic integrity out the door so it fits his political agenda. Perhaps Joe
the Plumber was perfectly right to laugh.

Update: I just wanted to confirm Newsbuster's transcripts about Mr. Roberts saying,
"He finally articulates what we all came to believe..." Sure enough I found the CNN
transcripts. He did say that.

Media Blunders of '08

Photo source


Wow. Politico must have had a difficult time narrowing it down to
10 blunders. I can think of few more blunders. How about this one?
Or this one? Maybe this? Please comment on other media blunders
of '08. There's plenty!

Morning Joe: Perhaps We Should've Looked Into Obama's Chicago Ties During the Election

Well, yeah, that's the news media job. Joe Scarborough notes in the
video embedded below that news organizations had enough resources to
send to Wasilla, Alaska. However, why couldn't anyone say this during the
election? So now Joe Scarborough speaks out. Your killing me, Joe.

Hyping Up the Recession

Bill O'Reilly argues in this Talking Points Memo segment that the
news media are contributing the economic downturn by undermining
the public's confidence in economy.



What do you think? Is the media making things worst with their constant
headlines of "The Great Depression 2.0" and so forth?

I will note that the Fox News now has a business channel. Financial media
is doing well during this time. So that is something to consider.

Bailout the Journos!

Via the NewsBusters. An op-ed piece from The New Republic advocates government
bailing out the downtrodden news business by bringing back the Federal Writers'
Project. And believe me the news business is downtrodden. Many of my reader's
know I, myself, have a degree in journalism and have struggled to find a career in
the slowing business. So at first this idea sounded enticing to me. However, I believe
there is an important principle here that is missed in the article. The news media
is often called the Fourth Estate and is needed to keep to checks and balances on
government. There will be an obvious conflict of interest if the government is the
one providing the paycheck for many journalists or news organizations. Plus, our
Constitution says we must have a free press.

A snippet from the article:

Barack Obama sounds like he wants to reach back to the New Deal's
Works Progress Administration to jump start the economy with an
economic stimulus proposal featuring infrastructure repair. If so, it
may be time for the man who would be FDR to take a look at another
successful--but largely forgotten--jobs program from the Depression
era: the Federal Writers Project.


America's newspaper industry has been imploding in the last few years,
a development that predates the Wall Street collapse but has been
hugely accelerated by the economic meltdown, forcing thousands of
journalists onto the street. Hundreds more have now joined them from
retrenching magazines and faltering websites, bringing the year-to-date
total to 14,683 according to the tracking website Paper Cuts. Hundreds
more have now joined them from retrenching magazines and faltering
websites. Every day the journalism clearinghouse Romenesko links to
stories of layoffs and downsizing--Gannett has been cutting 2,000 jobs
across the chain, and Newsday has just announced another five percent
in the last week alone. Any federal effort to put back to work the hundreds
of thousands thrown out of work in the nation's hard-hit industrial,
construction, airline, and financial sectors should consider displaced news
media workers--including those newly laid off from the publishing industry
--as well.

I think the old news media are going to have learn that times are changing. New
media is informing people also. So they are going to have downsize and restructure
themselves for the new reality. They are in the "reality" business, right?

The Snub that Wasn't

CNN: The. Most. Trusted. Name. In. News (Except for Rick Sanchez!)

Note: I always have difficulty playing CNN videos on Firefox so try another
internet browser if it doesn't work.

More on the Death of Journalism

Quote from Victor Davis Hanson:

There is now no journalism as we knew it. It died during the campaign. And so
we have no mainstream media audit of politics other than the vestigial shrill
warnings about the last three months of the dangerous Bush administration.
From the New York Times, NPR, PBS, or Newsweek, we will hear little whether Obama is choosing a good or bad team, or said silly things or contradicts what
he promised. They simply have lost all credibility and now the republic is left
largely with bloggers, talk radio, and a few newspapers as mostly partisan auditors. This puts the mainstream media in a terrible bind. If Gitmo is not closed immediately, are the victimized detainees there suddenly redefined as terrible
killers who can’t be let out? If adhered to, does the Petraeus-Bush withdrawal
planto leave Iraq by 2011, suddenly become sober and judicious? If not tampered with, do FISA and the Patriotic Act morph into reasonable measures? Does the economy suddenly improve on January 21, and Afghanistan become stable? Will anyone believe a Katie Couric, Chris Matthews, the front page of the New York Times, or listen to Andrea Mitchell when they speak of Obama? The media has bet that there was no efficacy to Guantánamo, the Patriot Act and similar provisions,
and Iraq. But the fact is in the same period we were not attacked. If there were a connection between the two (and many of us think that there was), then shutting down Gitmo, repealing the Patriot Act, and getting quickly out of Iraq could be done within the first yeareasily and without risk. But will it happen, and if so, what would
be the reaction following another 9/11-like attack?

Wow! This is Scary

After watching this video can you honestly say 1) That our media doesn't
have a liberal bias 2) That our news media isn't doing a huge disservice to
the American public. My goodness, the people in this video knew how much
Sarah Palin spent on stupid outfits but they didn't know that President-elect
Obama said he wanted to bankrupt the coal industry. Tell me which do you
think is more important to know? Honestly this video makes me never want
to turn on a cable news show ever again or buy a news magazine. I now feel
that I'm supporting absolute trash if I do. I know something that needs to be
changed in America: Our worthless, tabloidy news media!!!

WaPo Columnist: We Should Have More Conservatives in the Newsroom

Really? Ya think? A snippet from the column:

It pains me to see lost subscribers and revenue, especially
when newspapers are shrinking. Conservative complaints
can be wrong: The mainstream media were not to blame for
John McCain's loss; Barack Obama's more effective campaign
and the financial crisis were.

But some of the conservatives' complaints about a liberal
tilt are valid. Journalism naturally draws liberals; we like
to change the world. I'll bet that most Post journalists voted for
Obama. I did. There are centrists at The Post as well. But the conservatives
I know here feel so outnumbered that they don't even want to
be quoted by name in a memo.

Journalists bristle at the thought of their coverage being viewed
as unfair or unbalanced; they believe that their decisions are
journalistically reasonable and that their politics do not affect how
they cover and display stories.

Tom Rosenstiel, a former political reporter who directs the Project
for Excellence in Journalism, said, "The perception of liberal bias is
a problem by itself for the news media. It's not okay to dismiss it.
Conservatives who think the press is deliberately trying to help
Democrats are wrong. But conservatives are right that journalism has
too many liberals and not enough conservatives. It's inconceivable
that that is irrelevant."

Group think can not be good for business. (Especially in a business that is slowly
collapsing.)

Also, did you notice in the column she talks about the "perception of bias" and
never actually admits that there is an actual problem of media bias? Isn't the
first step to rehabilitation admitting you have problem?