Matt Taibbi on Olbermann Suspension

How Matt Taibbi is able to continually squeeze through the bullshit and come out crystal clear on the other side is beyond me, but his analysis of the Olbermann campaign contribution kerfuffle is spot-on.

We had a whole generation of journalists who sat by and did nothing while, for instance, George Bush led us into an idiotic war on a lie, plus thousands more who spent day after day collecting checks by covering Britney's hair and Tiger's text messages and other stupidities while the economy blew up and two bloody wars went on mostly unexamined... and it's Keith Olbermann who should "pay the price" for being unethical? Because, and let me get this straight, he donated money, privately, to politicians?


This is absurd even by GE's standards. There is no reason, not even a theoretical one, why any journalist should be prevented from having political opinions and participating in election campaigns in his spare time. The policy would be ridiculous even if we were talking about an evening news anchor -- because the only "ethical" question here is the issue of NBC wanting to preserve the appearance of impartiality and being unable to do so, because political contributions happen to be public record and impossible to hide from viewers.

Eight False Things The Public "Knows" Prior to Election Day

Baffled as to why these misperceptions still exist.

Could someone please tell journalists to write 1000 words on reality. I realize this might be more difficult than simply cutting and pasting press releases from the GOP, and columnists might not get invited to the cool parties anymore, but for crying out loud.

On a positive note, I'll bet half of Americans can name eight contestants on Dancing With The Stars.

Media Bias

"More than half of Americans think media bias is a bigger problem in politics today than the money that flows into campaigns," says a new poll, with 55% finding the biased media to blame against 32% who finger the giant campaign contributions. No breakdown on how many of those 55% think the problem is the media's bias against doing extensive reporting on how those gigantic campaign contributions affect the political process, but I'm sure it's a bunch, right?

Via The Awl

Bill O'Reilly and Media Courage

Bill wins the "Media Courage Award" and then bans the media from his Values Voter Summit speech.

I guess Bill would call "retreat" simply attacking in the opposite direction.

Obama's Education Speech Should Have Been: Your Parents Are Stupid

Via Hullabaloo:

Monica Novotny: John, what about this controversy over opposition to Obama's speech to school children?

John Harwood: I've got to tell you Monica, I've been watching politics for a long time and this one is really over the top. What it shows you is there are a lot of cynical people who try to fan controversy and let's face it, in a country of 300 million peopl there are a lot of stupid people too because if you believe that it's somehow unhealthy for kids for the president to say "work hard and stay in school," you're stupid!

Novotny: (laughter)

Harwood: I'm worried for some of those kids of those parents who are upset. I'm not sure those parents are smart enough to raise those kids.

Will Good Writing Outlive Old School Journalists?

From a cushy spot on my blogging chair, I've been able to act as an interested observer in the unfolding dynamic between old-school newspaper and magazine scribes - the George Will/Maureen Dowd/Bill Kristol crowd - and the newer breed of writers - hilzoy/Taibbi/atrios, et al.

One point has distilled in crystal clarity: The newer writers are doing a much better job of working at their writing and delivering a product both robust in its content and approachable in its presentation.

To put it bluntly, new media writes the way that I read.

I've plowed through tens of thousands of articles, print and online, and in too many instances the onus has been on me to parse though the journalistic conventions, reporter-speak, and conventional wisdom in the hopes of squirting out the other side with a better understanding of the topic than when I jumped in. I've not always been successful.

I readily accept the blame for a percentage (20%?) that I had neither the energy nor the inclination to hang in there. Call it "brain of clay", whatever. The train left the station and I bailed before things really started rolling.

One-fifth of the time, it clicked. I got whatever it was they were saying. I was engaged, interested, and fully caught up in the topic, regardless of the writer's point of view. It was less about whether I agreed with the analysis and explanation than it was whether it was put forth logically and coherently.

The other 60% I assigned equally between two buckets - the writer wasn't getting through to me and successfully transferring the knowledge from their head to mine, or there was really no new information to pass along. The writer was phoning it in, or never intended to educate in the first place. Column space is a difficult thing to fill, and a writer can only rephrase the same stale talking points a finite number of times before beginning to sputter and stall.

What brought me to thinking about this was a digby post concerning the reaction to Matt Taibbi's Rolling Stone article on Goldman Sachs and his related blog postings on the subject. Here's digby's take:

The reason so many people read Taibbi's work on the banking crisis is not simply because he calls a spade a spade, but because he does it by writing (and speaking) in such a way that makes the issue itself comprehensible. His conclusions about motives and guilt are obviously open for criticism. Anyone's are. But his explanations of what happened, how these financial instruments worked, what precipitated the crisis and how the industry is constructed are clear, informative and comprehensive. Unlike so many others who write on this topic, he has fulfilled his duty as a journalist without making it "homework," as Ezra says, or effectively helping to obfuscate the issue on behalf of those who seek to keep people in the dark.

As bloggers and non-mainstream writers have pushed their way into the game, there has been scorn, derision, and ridicule heaped their way by old-school journalists and the monolithic organizations that employ them. We're repeatedly lectured about how the newcomers lack the reporting stones to deliver a valuable product, so while it's ok if they continue to practice their particular flavor of high school newspaper journalism, we would be wise to dance with the folks that brought us, as they know the music, and by extension, what's good for us.

The problem is that new generations of readers put far less stock in credentials than they do relevant, accurate information. Peabody awards might look good on a shelf somewhere, but they don't help us collect and digest the information we want. And therein lies the core issue: Readers are gravitating toward writers who provide what the readers want, while abandoning those with a history of only providing what they think readers are entitled to know.

This divergence will accelerate if large, institutional journalistic entities follow through on their threats to hide what they consider to be their "valuable" content behind paywalls. The reward needs to be sufficiently worthy for a rat to expend the energy to overcome new obstacles placed within the maze. Otherwise, they'll abandon the same old cheese and go in search of something better that doesn't require them to jump through hoops to savor.

Newspapers Begin Charging for Online Content: Deathwatch Begins

In the opening salvo that will undoubtedly go down as the day the newspaper business blew off its own foot, the Valley Morning Star in Texas said it plans to begin charging for access to its online content unless users also have a daily print subscription.

Ka-POW.

Would you pay 75 cents a day to be able to read some ten-gallon Podunk news online? Better yet, will anyone who doesn't maintain a seven day per week print subscription care enough to part with their coins, or will they look for content elsewhere?

Time will tell. You already know how I think this whole thing with turn out.

I'll be nice and drive some traffic by linking to their site. You're welcome, Valley Morning Star.

Image via davekellam on flickr

David vs. Goliath: The Media Wars

The recent CNN televised cat fight between Dana Milbank and Nico Pitney (video posted here) is an excellent example of the struggle in progress between the traditional, mainstream media and the emergence of alternate information sources, like bloggers, news/opinion sites like The Huffington Post, Talking Points Memo, and countless others.

In his book, "Taking on the System", Daily Kos chieftain Markos Moulitsas Zuniga explained, in depth, the concept of "gatekeepers", those who for decades have controlled the flow of information to the general public, accumulating an enormous amount of power in the process.

In the last ten years or so, the Internet has allowed hundreds and thousands of new voices to be heard, effectively circumventing the gatekeepers. Have all of these newcomers graduated with journalism degrees? No. Do they dangle their participles and shift tenses from paragraph to paragraph? They do. Does anyone (outside of journalism professors and graduates) really care? Not really.

And not everything written by the blogging crowd has been accurate or adequately researched, either. Some in the mainstream media point to this as the reason why it's important for the old-school news organizations to survive and thrive. They have an elaborate framework of researchers, editors, fact-checkers, and others that places rigor in the news presentation process.

But does that provide a better, or more accurate, news product? Not always, as evidenced by the media's complete flop in how they covered the run up to, and the execution of, the 2nd war in Iraq, the follies of the George W. Bush administration, and other well known and highly publicized missed opportunities. The prosecution points to William Kristol as Exhibit A. The prosecution rests.

In my mind, there exists this uncomfortable, almost incestuous relationship between the mainstream press and the targets of their coverage. Whether it's the White House correspondents dinner, the Radio and Television correspondents event, or countless other examples, many have questioned just how close the reporters have gotten to those they cover, and whether there's an underlying problem with journalists pulling punches in order to maintain privileged access to key policy and decision makers.

Now, more than ever, there's a need for  independent fact-gathering and reporting. Challenging those in power is never easy, and not always successful, but some of the best-in-kind news reporting has come out of, if not adversarial, then well-respected reporter-reportee relationships. When was the last time anyone sitting in that White House press room, or traveling on Air Force One, broke a major story or held up the truth to power? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

People tend to gravitate toward information that supports previously-held views, and avoid coverage that challenges those same positions. Psychologists and analysts refer to this as reinforcement bias. As the political discourse has become more polarized, we've seen prime examples of news organizations tailoring their coverage (and message) toward certain points of view. There's a danger here that if this trend continues, it could lead to an inverse bell curve of media outlets, heavily populated at both extremes but minimalist in the center. Truth becomes secondary to the message.

Watching my local television news team struggle to maintain relevence (and audience), I've seen so many swings and misses that it's becoming difficult to watch. Walking around the news room during story setups and throws, and reading what people are emailing or Twittering or Facebooking isn't the same thing as bridging the gap between old and new media. It demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the chasm between old and new media, and comes off like the one middle aged man in every neighborhood who tries to appear hip by wearing inappropriate clothing and spewing jargon that makes his teen children wince.

One key driver of this struggle has been how Barack Obama has chosen to communicate, both during his campaign and now in office, often taking his message directly to the people instead of lobbing it to standard media centers for filtering and delivery. This has to be causing angst among those who are more stenographer than reporter, because there's apparently a value proposition in the information after all. What differentiates your (story, paper, magazine, newscast) from the rest? It's no longer enough to be first, or to be "the paper of record" or a venerable network anchor.

As this transition shakes out, it will be interesting to watch what changes and what stays the same. Eventually, if the past is a reliable predictor of the future, a hybrid model will develop,and we readers will benefit. But until that day, look for much teeth-grinding and back-stabbing. Old power never cedes position voluntarily.

Mark Twain Motivational Posters

I suppose it's possible to do this with any famous person who has been well-quoted, but for some reason I find the use of Mark Twain's image and words to generate modern motivational posters to be delightfully anachronistic.

Perhaps because the only exposure most people have had to Twain's folksy mix of humor and intelligence comes from a twangy, lilting Hal Holbrook monologue, the truth behind his observational acumen has been misinterpreted by the modern audience.

Placed in a familiar format to which people readily recognize and accept, Twain's motivational posters are both enlightening and shaming - a prime example of how good advice seldom goes out of style, and a reminder that populist corporate motivation is all sizzle and no steak.

Mark Twain Motivational Posters