« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
All Bias, All Bull - the CNN Promise
Ok. I rarely watch the mainstream media. It's not good for my mind or my bloodpressure, but just now I was resting and turned on the TV. It was tuned to CNN because I had watched Obama the day before on that station.
When I tuned in, there was McCain giving a speech. Only a bit of it, and then they went to commercial and then to their "analysts" who proceeded mostly to say what a good job McCain was doing in changing his position on immigration. The only one challenging his position changes was basically shouted down by a blonde woman who spoke like a pure McCain apologist.
Next, they showed some of Obama's live speech before the NAACP. It was inspiring, and what I heard reminded me of his committment to making this a better country and a better world for real people.
Then they faded it out and said they would come back and their "best political analysts in the world" or some such BS would discuss Obama's speech.
What happened? I suffered through the commercials (muted) and they returned. The first question out of the moderator's mouth was about Jesse Jackson. Then she tried to get the black analyst, who was most reasonable about Obama to agree with her that this was not atypical of the black opinion of Obama, but thankfully he had none of that and refuted her position. Somehow, the discussion then shifted to McCain and how he was booed on Martin Luther King day by black people and how courageous he was to go before this hostile crowd (which he is scheduled to do on Wednesday) and how he actually would answer questions, which Obama would not do for the latino crowd he recently spoke before.
By the time they went to commercial, they had said absolutely nothing about Obama's speech, and had spoken more (and positively) about McCain than Obama. After the commercial, they went on to speak with someone about the mortgage crisis.
So much for their top, unbiased-no bullshit analysts. Not a word - not one word - about Obama's speech, which was what had been promised. It was derailed immediately by the program's host. It was deliberate. It was total bullshit.
Cast of Characters:
The Host: <b>Campbell Brown </b>
The Black (sort of) Liberal Guy: <b>Rollin Martin </b>
The Hispanic (not liberal) Woman: <b>Leslie Sanchez </b>
The Blonde (McCain Apologist): <b>Gloria Borger </b>
Shameful.
So, if you want to do something about it, check these threads and help us make a difference:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/can-our-voices-be-heard-how-do.php
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/followup-our-voice-and-the-med.php
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/our-ammunition-countermeasures.php
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/sudden-citizens-action-against.php
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/msmwatch-weekend-edition.php
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/mission-statement-tools-to-cou.php
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/scaamd-tools-repackaged-1.php
Comments (34)
The point of this story is that the MSM can derail and belittle Obama without seeming to say anything negative about him, simply by asking leading questions that are off topic, as in this case. The host, Campbell, intentionally steered the conversation away from the speech and to the Jackson controversy, despite having promised to have the analysts discuss the speech, which was quite inspiring. I do not believe for an instant that it was unintentional. It was intentional as hell, and a direct contradiction of what they had promised, which makes it even more disreputable and obvious.
This is what Obama is up against. It's far more subtle than the obvious stuff. It's pervasive in the media, and we need to stop it. Or at least we need to try.
July 14, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent description of an all-too-typical exchange in the mainstream media. The underlying bias in favor of McCain is pervasive that it makes me scream at the TV.
The media is playing the role where they are the "vetter" of Obama, and must analyze every nuance of his policies and rhetoric (which would be fine if applied evenhandedly, BTW) for inconsistency (all while using openly partisan critics to attack those policies and rhetoric), while they are acting as apologists for McCain.
Further compounding the problem is, as you noted, how hard it is to isolate and condemn this subtle form of bias.
Good post. Recommended.
July 15, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I concur with your previous post outlining a for of "Fact Check" for the MSM. Possibly the only way to break the commercial meme is to shame them into it.
Since the driving force behind the MSM today is not to serve the public interest but rather generate revenue we are treated to their perception of what they think will put eyeballs on the screen.
I think that there should be suits challenging their status as "press" under the 1st amendment. Judgments are constantly being made as to what constitutes "press" - What constitutes political vis a vis the non-profit status of churches. I couldn't get a press pass for the latest Rose Garden ceremony by simply listing blogger in my request for a credential.
We should make genuine NEWS REPORTING - just the facts/no commentary - Tax Free, and we should revisit the laws allowing for consolidation of media outlets.
July 14, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is confused speech - I apologize for the confusing threads of thought.
My point is this - the press holds a special protection under the 1st amendment and I don't think that these clowns qualify. Just because you call yourself the press doesn't make it so, there must be some standards.
You can broadcast it - you just can't call it NEWS, maybe across from Entertainment Tonight, or that other TMS or TMJ (whatever) gossip show.
July 14, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have been a journalist (not a political one, to be sure) for most of the last 33 years. I value my integrity over ratings or pressure from other sources - even friendships. As a journalist, I put on a different hat, and that hat is as fair as I'm capable of being, and as honest. If I were working in the arena that these people are in, I would have to make a very strong statement against the corruption of journalistic principles and quit. I could not, under any circumstances, shill for a partisan position and call myself a journalist.
So, that's my way of saying, yes, I agree.
July 15, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Raider. I know it's not your campaign's aim, but Obama & co. really need to line up some meat-eating dogs & set 'em loose in the MSM on this. That Rollin dude just does NOT cut it. Hell, if he came in here chattin', he'd get beat like a second-hand sofa.
And yeah yeah yeah, Obama-folk, we're a kinder, gentler nation and all. But O's backers on tv - on the whole - seem to me to lack his eloquence, they're overly-earnest, stiff & generally, pretty damned weak stuff. ADMIT IT, you scream at THEM, Obama's "defenders," cause they do such a crap job, doncha?
TV hires the talking heads, you say? Well... I suspect that if O wanted to have some particular people on there, that could be done. Take Carville. He can smile, dance, play nice, and he's fluent - so if he needs to talk kinder/gentler, he can. But if you want someone to take down a team of vicious drug-crazed weasels like the Republicans.... there's nobody better. And yeah, I know, a lotta ya hate him. But let me turn the fave comment around here back on ya. Do YOU wanna see McCain get back in this Fall? I don't. We need people with sharper teeth than Rollie. Who knows... maybe even a sense of humor. I can dream...
July 14, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the campaigns can get people on some shows, but the networks and the shows themselves pick analysts themselves, I suspect. I could be wrong, but I pretty much think they just grab some junkie off the street and tell him he's the Obama guy and pay him in Ripple.
Okay, that wasn't very nice, but who are these people, anyway? Geez.
July 14, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Correction. Rollin Martin is Roland Martin. Somehow my google search got the wrong spelling. Sorry.
July 14, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
For more info on Roland, please see: here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Hedley
July 14, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I stopped paying attention to the media so long ago... it just doesn't make sense to me anymore. What I do look at is pretty clearly biased for McCain, but it isn't that it is this or that, it is the whole package.
July 14, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed - the MSM has hit the wall of diminishing returns. They've entered a vicious circle where their concerns for ratings results in infotainment, which drives down viewership, which increases concern for ratings.
They could move away from infotainment but that hurts the bottom line.
The last - and I mean last - time I watched CNN I was in a hotel and looking for news. CNN had two stories for the entire day. Don Imus and the paternity results for the baby daddy of a blond model/celebrity/actress who's name I never can remember. When I got home I removed CNN from my channel listings. Haven't missed it yet.
They're as dead as Detroit - victims of their own ability to game the system for short term gain at the expense of long-term viability.
July 15, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, the MSM is not dead. It still is alive enough to influence the elections. Intelligent people may want to barf or blow their brains out when they watch this crap, but there are a lot of people who don't think about things as deeply, but sort of sit in front of the TV and let the talking heads talk at them. How closely they pay attention, I can't say, but even if they are really drifting off into other thoughts some of the time, the ideas and misinformation reaches them. In fact, precisely because they aren't really paying close attention, they are more susceptible to being influenced by partial messages and overall bias.
Propaganda doesn't work on people who are truly informed, aware and critical. But throughout history it has worked on the masses, so you can draw your own conclusions.
So I would not discount the MSM as being dead and of no importance. Even if that were true, it's like saying the rattlesnake you just ran over is dead and squashed, only to have it's head bite you and inject its poison when you picked up the corpse to toss it off the road. Or to use the constant cliche of thriller/horror movies, Don't ever pronounce the enemy dead until you're certain. They have a way of rising up and attacking you again just when you think you're safe.
July 15, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually talk to people who get most of their info from the corporate media and even know something isn't kosher. They may not be able to articulate it, but they are engaged in when you point out the reasons why. I think the biggest thing we can do is to talk to those people in each of our lives who get their "news" in this fashion,
July 15, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly agree with you, Jason, that we should definitely talk to those we know who are influenced by this kind of thing. That's one very good approach, but not the only one.
"Think globally. Act locally." Good maxim, but sometimes, we also have to add on some global action as well. Or at least that's what I'm currently believing.
July 15, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree and I think you make a good case that networks (more specifically their advertisers) must not be getting bombarded with enough grassroots anger or they would change their tune.
If enough big companies hear from disaffected consumers on this stuff, I imagine it would change. Also, enough of us tuning out for the most part should have an impact at some point.
Great topic for discussion.
July 16, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmmm...... is this another argument for Joe Biden as VP? He does do "scalding" well.
Roland Martin was the only member of the press - the *only* one I could find - who did some out and out solid research on the Rev. Wright situation: got the sermons from which the clips were taken, summarized them appropriately, made them available (video or audio) on his web site. Talked to parishoners of the church, talked to a variety of other ministers, black and white. Just did some fine reporting (tho he never found out who had put the clips together ... something I gather only ABC knows, since they had it before Fox even). No, he isn't a forceful, pin-'em-against- the-wall type of talking head, but I've learned to listen when he does talk.
Thanks for those links, raider - I'm going to bookmark this and when I get back from my trip toward the end of the month, figure out how to get involved and get something done.
July 14, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks so much. Your help will be greatly appreciated. I hope your trip goes well, and look forward to seeing you again.
July 14, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, I think you're right Elizabeth2. Roland actually DID seem to do some good work on the Wright thing. I give him points for that. But as a give-and-take kinda analyst, I'm not convinced that's what he's best at.
July 15, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the pro-McCain bias is an effort for self preservation. There are a total of 5 corporations that control ALL of the MSM. Obama on the topic:
They don't want new restrictions. They have an agenda.
The quote above is from this recent interview:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6570325.html
July 15, 2008 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's my main issue with the media. I'd like to see less of the transparent shills posing as analysts and more of a return to real reporting based on actual facts. I'd rather be presented with an issue and make up my mind for myself than have it regurgitated for me so they can tell me what to think. Even the so-called "reporters" rather than analysts no longer pretend they are just reporting the facts and often add their own skewed perceptions. 24 hour cable news has gone to hell in a handbasket and MSNBC & CNN are following the FOX model to the detriment of their viewers.
The media does not have a responsibility of acting as an arm of the Obama or McCain campaigns. All that we should demand and expect of them is fair treatment of the candidates. I didn't see anything unfair in the transcript discussed. It should be noted in the same CNN piece they also talked about McCain being befuddled by the internets and such and what that says about his candidacy. I worry about "working the refs" so much that our outrage loses its potency when a real OUTRAGE story arises like the Baby Mama or some women actually are bitches. I will definitely sign on to the campaign to protest those individual instances when they occur.
July 15, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
And just one note, I would add the transcript when available to the post so people can read and determine for themselves whether something crossed the boundaries. The transcript is here:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/14/ec.01.html
I appreciate you and Ripper and the others who have signed on keeping the media on their toes and alerting us to biases when they occur. That effort is certainly important and just because I don't agree with this particular instance, that doesn't mean that I don't appreciate the efforts to keep a close eye on the media so we can address them when they are out of line.
July 15, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for the transcript. In future I will attempt to get that.
And as I look over the transcript, looking at the part I witnessed, which was from right before Obama's speech segment through the segment that followed, I stand by what I said. The discussion turned immediately away from the speech and into controversy, then to McCain, with a few jabs at Obama, but mostly praise and apologist commentary for McCain. Charting this conversation in terms of content, both for relevancy to the speech (what it was billed to be) and for quantity of time spent on Obama vs. McCain and on a measure of provocative/critical vs. supportive toward each candidate, it is pretty hard to respect what happened, or to think it was accidental.
Yes, this is only one small snippet of time on one show, but it was pretty obvious that it was steered the way it was, and so I think it's very appropriate to be concerned, because if this is what is happening 24 hours a day on these networks (not just CNN), then it's no wonder the people who still watch this crap are misinformed and confused.
July 15, 2008 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I respect your opinion on the matter, djamo, as always, but there's a subtlety that is dangerous here. The tee-up following the clip of Obama speaking said that "the best team of political analysts on TV will discuss Senator Obama's speech." Following the commercial, the host asks about the Jesse Jackson issue and immediately shifts the focus from an excellent speech. For most of that segment, leading to the next commercial, the talk was about McCain, and it was mostly positive - how courageous he is to talk to the NAACP and be willing to answer questions when Obama wouldn't answer questions at a latino conference. Even if they do chide McCain over the internet, we all know that's nothing. Our old grandpa hasn't learned the internet. How amusing. It's not on a scale with his gaffes over the viagra/birth control issue or his offhand statements suggesting that it's good to export more cigarettes to Iran so it will kill more of them, and so forth.
But what is wrong here, besides the openly partisan discussion on McCain is that this segment was advertised as a discussion of Obama's speech and there was not one word about the speech in that segment, and the only mentions of Obama at all were denigrating or baiting over a hot-button issue.
This, in isolation, would be nothing remarkable, but as a pattern of deception and manipulation it's every bit as damaging as the more obvious instances of bias and partisanship in place of real reporting or analysis. It may be even worse, because it can be done repeatedly without people really getting upset about it - like you - and meanwhile, the watchers are cheated and manipulated by this subtle, but not accidental, shift of focus.
I find this far more dangerous than you do, but I agree that we can see it differently. It will remain a part of my concern, along with a whole host of others.
July 15, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
sounds like it's right out of the MSM playbook, raider99. I can't check out the script right now, but I've seen this play before.
July 15, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, I think it is, but it's not really reported like the big issues, yet it's so much a part of the playbook that, if we are going to have any effect, that has to be something we address and not let it slip past us.
Maybe this suggests that we need an MSM viewer's education system as well, though I doubt it would work, because anyone who is watching that crap is probably not going to be interested in being educated for real.
July 15, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very well put.
Forget about the news media serving the public interest by reporting important facts so the viewers can make better informed decisions. Instead, a few facts are spun amd respun into a million meaningless what-ifs and pseudo opinion that serve the corporate media agenda.
More than 50% of the "news" is pure SPECULATION about x,y and z, instead of news. (at least I'd say around this much; I turn it off every time I see the speculators in action)
Whoever told these people we cared what they had to say in the first place?
July 15, 2008 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Campbell Brown is married to Dan Senor, former deputy to WH Press Secretary Scott McClellan and former chief spokesperson for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. He's now a contributor to FOX News. That should give you an idea of where she's coming from.
July 15, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. Not at all surprising.
July 15, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
raider99, guygene's facts are so important! This is what I was talking about for SCAMMD in a previous thread. i'd like see a bio like that for each MSM speculator. This would give the viewers a little perspective about what's behind most of the speculation and opinion.
July 15, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. We should put that on our Resources List.
July 15, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
A number of TV journalists have come out in recent months to admit that they had pressure from above to keep to the Administration line on the lead-up to the Iraq war and not challenge their statements.
Those higher-ups were looking to their business/financial interests, which lay in supporting the Admin position.
I cannot but think that those same higher-ups have gotten together and decided that McCain's winning is the best way for them to keep their profits coming, no matter what it does to anything or anyone else.
I don't think it's simply bad journalism in a case like this at CNN, raider, but that they're stacking the decks in who's "discussing" these speeches and the campaigns in general. They are inserting people who will present McCain in the better light, so that their business interests will be protected for the next four to eight years.
I am really hoping that Obama has backed off on his stronger positions from the primary campaign simply to appear less threatening to business interests. My deep hope is that once he's elected he will return to his stronger stances on restricting this rampant control that business has over areas essential to our health and freedom, including the media.
This movement of ours might do two things: get more Americans to be aware of what's occurring to keep real news and analysis unavailable to them, and reassure Obama that the American people will support his efforts to dismantle corporate control over the media.
July 15, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I don't think it's simply bad journalism in a case like this at CNN, raider, but that they're stacking the decks in who's "discussing" these speeches and the campaigns in general."
No question about it. They choose who they hire, in most cases, and they create a situation with, normally, a loud and assertive right wing pundit (or two) against a weaker, less verbally gifted and less assertive liberal type - if they even bother to have a token liberal. The most extreme example of this, of course, and the prototype for it in some ways, is Hannity vs. Colmes. How much more blatant can you get?
I, too, have faith in Obama's rational approach to things. I don't expect he's going to be as radical as I would be, but that's possibly a good thing. I've had some wild ideas about what I'd do if I were president. So I think Obama will be a very thoughtful, careful president. I hope he will also be bold at times, and not too cautious or thoughtful. He needs to be bold to get things done, and he needs to push hard for the reforms we need so badly - reforms that will protect our civil rights and prevent another regime like Bush's from abusing the power of both the Executive and the Congressional branches of government.
July 15, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you, raider99. The quality of the news reporting- particularly the political news- is abysmal. I loved cnn when ted turner owned it. in nov., i got cable for the first time since 1996.
I just had it disconnected last week, and since i live in a mountainous area, no cable means no tv. Thank God! The political reporting is so biased, and like you say, then come the "analysts". these people are not experts, they're all people pushing a particular agenda, verbally towel-snapping oneupsmanship. it's ideological agenda-driven drivel, not news or news analysis. you may be younger than me, but in the 60s, when i was a kid, i'd watch press conferences with lbj. ok, i hated our involvement in viet nam, but loved, loved, loved the guy on domestic issues. he was the best president in my lifetime on domestic issues. anyway, sarah mcclendon and helen thomas would always be there. you could tell that they were liberal, but when they'd question lbj on some matters, they'd ream him a new one sometimes. it was sometimes over something they'd agree with in theory, but the ways and means lbj proposed to accomplish the task were something these ladies would anticipate to be the wrong, inefficient method. in the old days, many reporters not only reported the news, but they'd try to report both sides, and tell of the ramifications of each of those sides as objectively as possible. no reporter seems to do that now. for about 8 mos., cnn was stuck on the fact that obama was black and hillary was a woman. i already knew that. it wasn't an issue for me and most others; valuable air-time was wasted as they belabored the point. as kinky friedman says, "when the horse dies, get off."
why aren't these candidates talking about -and reporters reporting about- how the bail-outs seem to go to large companies, instead of the poor common people who were lied to and mislead by these companies?
and worst of all, how come tv isn't reporting how, since bill clinton, but hundreds-of-fold- times worse under bush--that the u.s. privatizes so much of what used to be done by government. these big businesses- large corporations and the military industrial complex- are robbing the u.s. treasury blind! blackwater, halliburton, kbr, etc.
and there should be a draft. isn't it funny, all those flag-pinwearing, patriotic people, in government and the talking heads on tv- doesn't it seem funny to you how their kids aren't fighting?
yeah, after about 2 yrs., one of mccain's kids went. but not the bush twins, the cheyney girls, chelsea clinton, the kerry kids, romney kids, bill o'rielly's kids, etc. have gone. don't you think things would be a little different if the kids of the rich and famous had to go, and some lost their lives, and others lost their minds with ptsd?
and do you think so many of those parents of children who will never go would be in favor of torture if their kids were in harm's way, and could possibly be subjected to torture by those who had been tortured by us?
i'm not for obama or mccain. we need a 3rd party, and we need tv stations and newspapers who will report on true news, not slant things for ideological purposes.
but i can't believe that mccain's as close as 8 points in the polls. How is that possible? with all the people suffering from the mortgage and housing prices, gas prices, sorry-paying jobs, etc., how could that many support mccain? it's not like he's going to help them! nor will obama. and hillary and mccain are two peas in a pod.
oh, well, it's good that you and democracy now are online. we can get true news that tv is afraid of. god forbid that the american people should wake up out of their boob-tube stupor and start figuring out how bad things are, and why government doesn't work for the will of the people anymore.
July 15, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks bubbie, for the comments. I might be a little younger than you, and at any rate, when LBJ was president I was not at all interested in politics.
We certainly have problems in this country, and the idea of a draft, while interesting, is probably not practical as the solution that you offer for the simple fact that every one of those kids of the rich and powerful would find a way out of it.
As for how McCain can be close in the polls, I imagine there are many reasons, some of them probably incomprehensible to me, but the mainstream media is one of them. They are working on McCain's behalf more than not. They are part of what keeps him competitive, and, to be very clear, it is in their interests, for many reasons, to keep it close or even to have McCain win.
Keeping it close improves ratings and makes them money.
Having McCain win probably insulates them from the much-needed media reform that could very well come at the hands of a Democratic administration.
So McCain represents a chance to keep ratings high and, perhaps more importantly, keeps them safe for another four years (at least) from having to be held accountable for their abuses and from having to live up to standards - or even from having conglomerate ownerships challenged. For that matter, I would prefer a law that prevents foreign citizens from owning our news agencies. If the news is the 4th Estate, as defined by the Founding Fathers, and a necessary part of the checks and balances of our nation, then it should be owned by patriots, not foreign magnates who don't have to live here or who have no real loyalty to our values and way of life.
July 15, 2008 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment