It is a safe rule of thumb that 80% of any randomly selected population are incompetent in their stated area of expertise. There is no reason to believe that this would not apply to journalists. A successful news corporation, like any other modern business entity, aims to harness the efforts of its trolls to make a profit. That does not necessarily involve being productive, as in say seeking out and reporting the truth. Whenever true productivity is involved it is a given that 20% of the people do 80% of the work.

In general, my experience confirms the 80-20 rule. However, I have also found that, generally speaking, those in charge of both the 80% and 20% recognize that this is how things are. And, as is often the case, they strive to keep the 20% happy because they recognize the value of these people and know that the bulk of the substantive work would not get done without them. I know I am greatly generalizing here but that has been my experience in my work-a-day world.

In todays news world, however, that whole idea has been turned on its head. The minority that might do productive work, like seeking out and reporting truth, are essentially outcasts in their community. This is especially true among their superiors. Profit takes precedence over truth and "real reporting". There are rare exceptions but what we are left with are merely readers of words which have been typed for them in a way which will maximize revenue. This might possibly be the most cynical view one could have but when it comes right down to it, it appears like it might not be far off the mark. In todays 24 hours news environment there is absolutely no time for activities which might not directly and expeditously contribute to the corporate bottom line. I don't consider it a stretch to say that what we see today in print and on television does not really fit anywhere near the category of "hard news".

MikeInOhio,

U.S. major media are, in many cases, populated by shallow, incurious, shortsighted and uncritically thinking individuals.

One could even say you are being charitable, as if there were no intentions behind the circumstances you describe...

Washington Business Journal - January 19, 2007

Separately, The Carlyle Group has reportedly offered to buy Tribune Co.'s TV station group, according to various media reports, as Chicago-based Tribune (NYSE: TRB) weighs other bids for the company, whose properties also include newspapers and radio stations.

George W. Bush - an idiot for the ages!

Tom

W was marketed as a likable decent guy who may not know a lot about complicated matters (just as many Americans don't) but whose basic instincts were as friendly as a guy at your family bar-b-q who talks to you over a beer and means well. Right out of the Reagan plan book (right down to the clearing of brush bit). Of course, it was all a crock.

Tom

Look, he's not gonna bring Murray Waas or Walter Pincus into an interview setting. Heaven forfend that Michael Ware or John Burns ask his some questions.

This is selection bias. Any reporter given this kind of access will be one who will not ask followup questions.

As a hand-in-glove fit to the general gist of this thread regarding our "Mainstream Media" read the post by Greg Sargent at The Horses Mouth (on this site) about the reporting on Hillary Clinton's "electability". This, folks, is what we will be fighting in 2008 and for many elections beyond. Our Mainstream Press, the Washington Post (one of the notorious liberal rags waved around by the right wing world), tailoring their stories around the talking points generated by the Republican Party to give the impression that Hillary has a tremendous number of people with a negative impression of her electability. When, in fact, the real story is that she has a higher "favorable rating" than either of the media darlings, John McCain or Barack Obama.

But see how this is portrayed over the next few days.  Hillary's "electability" will be the big question.  That will be the frame of reference, her negative numbers.  When in reality, she has a very high "favorable rating".

They table is being set, people, for the "Al Gore Assault" on any and all Democratic nominees who might challenge a Republican front runner.  Skew facts, frame non-issues in a negative light and, yes, lie if you must, in order to maintain the sacred pundit oath.  For reference see, Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster, Hillary's clothing choices, her hairstyle,  It will all be construed into something which is totally irrelevant but will allow them to fill air time and print with vaccuous innuendo and unfounded allegations.  Don't be surprised of we aren't soon subject to retrodding the old imaginary tale about how many people the Clintons had killed.

This, folks, is just the kind of unadulterated crap that put George Bush in the White House, put us in Iraq and has put over 3000 freedom loving Americans in the ground.  If this type of thing doesn't piss you off then you had better get your passport and get the hell out of town as soon as you can.  Cause this is the type of thing we are dealing with.  The sooner that we get out there and debunk this, the sooner we get our country back.

Pretty much...yes. Jim Lehrer asked him a few questions last week, but wasn't exactly grilling him either.

Bush's willed ignorance/blindness combined with his completely cynical ideas about 'fact' - i.e. that power produces facts and facts are just perception anyway -all combine to allow him to offer up turds for answers no matter who's interogating him.

Leher, no Hugo Chavez, offered that polls rated his handling of Iraq at 30%, but he simply ignored the "your handling" part of the query, and simply allowed that, yes, "People don't approve of Iraq" - not his handling of the issue.

Isn't it funny that the higher and mightier they are - the more they claim to "create reality" the more they can completely ignore the part they themselves played in the problems they create?

These Masters of the Universe, when confronted with their bumbling, start mumbling about 'historical forces' or vauge tendencies of social and political trends.

They lay claim to God-like powers, then when you point out their glaring mistakes, they kind of shrug like "Jeez buddy, whadya want? I'm just some dude."

When they talk about "personal responsibility" it's in order to allow credit card companies to steal from the poor, but the rich and powerful? "Hey man, I'm just reacting to all these 'market forces' and 'historical forces' and 'globalization' - don't blame the powerful for trashing the planet and stealing from the poor - our hands are tied - but if I charge you 30% interest - hey dude, you should've known better than to deal with a bastard like me."

For the last six years many of the Republicans have lived a double standard - Delay, Foley, Cunningham, etc.

Tom

It's characteristic of Bush that what he learns from Johnson and Vietnam is a political lesson, not a policy one. Vietnam finished LBJ as a politician -- and that's the only thing that interests Bush. As far as American security goes, losing in Vietnam was almost certainly the best outcome, since if we'd "won" we'd still be propping up weak, corrupt governments in an intractably unstable situation there.