My first visit was to BuzzMachine, a popular blog about both mainstream and online media. It is written by Jeff Jarvis, an associate professor at City University of New York’s Graduate School of Journalism. He’s been published across a variety of media, and is an occasional guest on cable news. His posts are usually detailed, thoughtful and eclectic. In light of the lawsuit by Dan Rather (left) against CBS for violating his contract, Jarvis published a scathing post knocking down many of Rather’s assertions. I found the piece to hit several points dead on, and my comment can be found here.
Secondly, I visited MediaMatters, a progressive media watchdog group. Last week’s column by senior fellow Eric Boehlert looked at the media’s coverage of the “General Betray Us” newspaper ad (right) placed by MoveOn.org. Boehlert has written for Salon.com and has covered media and politics extensively. However, just as I was finishing my reply, the comment thread for this post was archived and new posts are no longer accepted.
-----
Cross-Post of “Buzz Machine” comment:
Jeff,
This was a rather blistering post, but I think it speaks for how a lot of journalists and others in the media are feeling. Mr. Rather is unwilling to admit there was a mistake, and even contends his apology was forced. He is blowing his own journalistic horn at the same time claiming distance from the fact checkers and others who played a part in the 60 Minutes error.
I agree with you that suing for $1 would have the same point of principle without making Mr. Rather appear even more greedy and egotistical. He is clearly at the end of his career and this latest stunt only further sours his reputation.
However, I was wondering if you think there is any credence to Rather’s complaints about corporate media ownership. In his “Larry King Live” interview, he warned that large media conglomerates and their political connections are a threat to the future of journalism. While his theories of CBS abandoning the “truth” to appease the White House are unsubstantiated, it doesn’t mean similar things could not happen in the future. Do you think there is such a risk, or can alternative media act as a check on this power, much in the way bloggers touched off Rathergate three years ago?
-----
Comment on “MediaMatters" column:
Eric,
I think you make several excellent observations in this column. News of nine more American service members being killed did go unnoted during the frenzy surrounding Petraeus’s testimony, even though it further illustrates the point that coalition forces are still paying a heavy price because of Iraq’s instability. Thank you for citing that poll (from Fox News, no less) showing American’s skepticism of Petraeus’s honesty .
I think you make excellent points about the media underreporting the true content of MoveOn’s ad. Instead, they were all too eager to turn it into a polarizing political issue that would ignite emotion on both sides of the aisle. I saw reports of the ad that did not discuss anything beyond the “Betray Us” headline before diving into political punditry. Conservatives were subsequently able to lambaste the entire ad without challenge.
Do you think this type of single-track coverage is systemic to today’s mainstream media, or was this a special case because of the circumstances surrounding the general’s long-awaited testimony? Many in the media were probably looking for a simple, soundbite friendly way to cover hours and hours of congressional testimony. A single newspaper ad reflected the sentiments of many anti-war critics, and proved to be a debate-worthy topic. It certainly has had an effect, and more people are probably familiar with MoveOn’s ad than anything Petraeus actually said before congress.
1 comment:
First off, thanks for not taking the same articles as me for my post, I though it was an overall good post. I think it was correct, in your case and not mine, to talk about to very big media stories of the week and not cling to just one. However, I feel like a little more preface on the Rather case would help, because its definitely not as cut and dry as MoveOn’s. The one thing I thought that your comments to the posts lacked however, was a bit of disagreement with the authors. Though I don’t really know you, there are a lot of assumptions I can make about you, after reading the comment. In my opinion, though you may agree on most points that the author makes, playing devils advocate may not only acquire a response from the author, but other individuals reading the post. It also doesn’t give off your bias. I agree with you on most points in your post. However, I was wondering your thoughts whether or not the conservative media machine is still quite strong, even after their efforts failed in the 2006 mid-term elections. Also, was it your intention to link both posts by showing the underlying conservative media machine that exist in our society? And just for the record, I completely forgot about Rather’s CNN interview. Am I ashamed as a former CNN intern not to have mentioned Larry.
Post a Comment