Big media's big mistake

Suzannee Fields:

...

Mark the calendar. August 2004 is the first time that the major, mainline media — CBSNBC ABCNEW YORKTIMES WASHINGTONPOSTLATIMESNEWSWEEK TIME MAGAZINEASSOCIATEDPRESS ETC. — ignored a news story that nonetheless became known by two-thirds of the country within two weeks of it being mentioned by the "marginal" press.
It was only after a CBS poll showed that Kerry had lost a net 14 percent of the veterans' vote to Bush — without aid of major media coverage or substantial national advertising — that the major media outlets began to lumber, resentfully, in the vague direction of the story. And even then, they hardly engaged themselves in the spirit of objective journalism.
According to Editor & Publisher, the respected voice of official big time journalism: "Chicago Tribune managing editor James O'Shea tells Joe Strupp the swift boat controversy may be an instance of a growing problem for newspapers in the expanding media world — being forced to follow a questionable story because non-print outlets have made it an issue. 'There are too many places for people to get information,' says O'Shea. 'I don't think newspapers can be gatekeepers anymore — to say this is wrong and we will ignore it. Now we have to say this is wrong, and here is why'."

...

While Mr. O'Shea's confessions seem unintentional, the statement of New York Times deputy national editor Alison Mitchell is straight forward. Ms. Mitchell is one of the very best political reporters in the country. When I was Newt Gingrich's press secretary, we were covered regularly by her. While she was tough and unrelenting, she was also impeccably fair and thorough. It therefore didn't surprise me to see her quoted in Editor & Publisher with the bluntly honest statement: "I'm not sure that in an era of no-cable television we would even have looked into it."
While she should be commended, as ever, for her unblinking honesty, what does that say about the mainline media? A candidate for president premises his campaign on his military record. Then 200 of his fellow officers, including almost his entire chain of command, come out against him as unfit to command and appear to cite chapter and verse in support of their shocking judgment. And the newspaper of record would not "even have looked into it."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more