« Ever wonder why Republicans aren't holding live town halls on health care? | tpmgary's Blog | Modern legislation should be written with a fountain pen. »
Enforcing journalism.
If you've watched MSNBC lately, particularly Morning Joe, you will have seen Chuck Todd and others opining about how much of a distraction it would be if Eric Holder were to choose a special prosecutor to investigate torture.
Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com rightfully took issue with the discussion and wrote a critique--was Chuck Todd being an objective reporter? Was he simply amplifying the Obama administration's position?
Here's a link to the initial Greenwald critique and here's a link to a subsequent discussion he and Chuck Todd had about the issue.
It seems hard enough to enforce the rule of law in this country.
Harder still to enforce real journalism.
Glenn Greenwald of Salon.com rightfully took issue with the discussion and wrote a critique--was Chuck Todd being an objective reporter? Was he simply amplifying the Obama administration's position?
Here's a link to the initial Greenwald critique and here's a link to a subsequent discussion he and Chuck Todd had about the issue.
It seems hard enough to enforce the rule of law in this country.
Harder still to enforce real journalism.
Advertisement
Clearly... enforcing law should have nothing to do with what the president or congress is working on.
I don't care what WA wants the reality is that for democracy everywhere we need accountability for the crimes of the last administration.
Without enforcement of rule of law our democracy is a ocmplete farce.
July 16, 2009 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry but I've forgotten what a 'journalist' looks like for the moment. As you say... there's a blurring of what it means. Anyone who has any journalistic integrity seems to be self enforcing it and that is rare.
Just know if they aren't in full power in DC they will use the full power of the media to 'herd' public opinion as they see fit. And yes that's about as much respect as these neo-con 'mafia' types have for us...
July 16, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've noticed a striking thing about how the torture debate has evolved: most everyone now seems to accept as a given crimes were committed by high ranking officials, that if an impartial investigation were to occur, the outcome would inevitably be charges brought against policy makers.
That doesn't bode well for Yoo. Think he'll play the fall guy?
July 16, 2009 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well now, this doesn't make much sense here ... It's supposed to be by it self.
And also too. also. Todd is a tool ... but at least Moyer is a bright spot on an otherwise dismal journalistic horizon.
July 16, 2009 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, since anyone should be able to call themselves a 'member of the press', at least those with a blog site, I wonder what professionalism is really involved in this occupation.
How much in advertising funds did you bring in last week hume?
July 16, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's become blurry, DD. Much worse over the last decade or so. IMO, the political universe is missing a fundamental force--journalistic integrity. This force should be a constant, like gravity.
July 16, 2009 5:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention a plurality of involved citizens. Those two missing pieces - the press and the public - mean very little is likely to change for the better anytime soon.
July 17, 2009 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Media-whores are not journalists...
July 17, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
But, he was just wunderin'
{Wink! Wink!}
July 16, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chuck Todd, yet another sycophant dazzled by the Court.
July 16, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I hope not. I actually don't know what his role is supposed to be--I've always thought of him as a political analyst. But he is a White House Reporter, so the line seems blurred.
Personally, I think anyone tasked with covering the White House should be an investigative journalist.
Not just a reporter.
July 16, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks tpmgary, nice catch on this story.
July 16, 2009 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Todd is a dweeb|
I get the sensation that Todd and his colleagues look at things through a reverse telescope that in essence is where the media views itself as the one that determines the news, instead of following it. Plus they are too far away out of touch to understand what they are doing.
July 16, 2009 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
....determines the news, instead of following it.
Yes, that is the sad truth of it.
July 17, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't get the argument about the threat to his agenda. It's not like anyone other than the special prosecutor will be spending time on this - so it's not a question of diverting resources. It's not like Republicans are going to start filibustering right and left. They're already doing that. So is it that a special prosecutor is wildly unpopular and so may hurt the president's polling? Or that the press coverage will be diverted and so weaken public pressure for other agenda items?
I can kind of buy the last idea...
July 17, 2009 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
"the press coverage will be diverted and so weaken public pressure for other agenda items?"
How will a special prosecutor make Obama's health care agenda less of a priority for Americans?
July 17, 2009 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right. Probably not. The bill's almost done. I was thinking more about things like financial regulation and climate change still in the early stages of development where the bills can get neutered if negotiations fly under the media radar. Being under the spotlight makes the pols have to explain themselves and feel the pressure.
July 17, 2009 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure. But Todd sounded so clueless about basic facts (like the attorneys scandal) that he hardly sounds like part of a media instrument designed to make pols face reality.
July 17, 2009 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
and the real point is, of course there is never a good time to investigate potential war crimes committed by one's own Government. But is it necessary to do so? That is the conversation we should be having.
July 17, 2009 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gary, the primary focus of your post is on broadcast journalism, not necessarily on journalism in its broader context that includes print (whether hardcopy or online). And your criticisms are valid. But let's not overlook the valiant vanguard consisting, just at the NYT, of Roger Cohen, Gail Collins, Bob Herbert and Frank Rich. I'm starting to wish that they had a cable TV show of their own since the world is apparently unwilling to give up "animation."
But, of course, who knows what pressures would pertain then on what could or could not be said.
Best advice: turn off the TV. Keep reading. Then write.
July 17, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ms. Staebler, Cohen, Collins, Herbert and Rich are not good journalists. They are mediocre at best and Collins is egregiously bad. Smarmy opinion is just that - smarmy opinion and that isn't a substitute for journalism.
July 17, 2009 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I rec BevD's comment!
Op-ed columnists are op-ed columnists, nothing more. There's a difference between reporters and op-ed columnists.
Sigh. Journalism really is dead if no one can recognize what it isn't.
July 17, 2009 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is really sad is the lack of research and fact checking that makes even opinion writing so very, very bad.
Here's an example - read Michael Gersson's (sp?)opinion today in the WaPo and then read the article he sites as his source. Is there not ONE editor at the WaPo who read both and saw how he clearly distorted the meaning of Ginsburg's words?
It is no mystery at all why the newspaper business is such a shambles.
p.s. Here's another example - the AP's report that the health care reform bill will cost 1.5 trillion - if we continue the way we are, health care is projected to cost 2.3 trillion. Whether it costs 1.5T or 2.3T it still is coming out of the same consumers' pockets, isn't it?
July 17, 2009 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right. Why isn't the story about the 800 billion we can save by implementing smart reforms?
July 17, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seconded.
July 17, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your point is well taken that opinion is not the same thing as in-depth investigative journalism. No argument there. But cable news strikes me as being much more comparable to opinion than to investigative journalism.
So, in effect, we agree.
July 17, 2009 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Todd could have been as sanguine presenting the other side of the argument - that the longer we ignore our recent (and ongoing?) descent into the dungeon the more our national soul is corroded. Had he done so, his persuasive argument against agressively pursuing this long-standing atrocity would be valid. Here's the deal: I basically agree with the Administration that the priorities right now are the meltdown and healthcare. Everything else - in comparison - is side-show. But because I support the position doesn't mean I support journalism that continues the "retail/middle-man" approach of stamping certified all White House press releases and sending them to press.
July 17, 2009 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand the dire need to address the economy and health care right now. In powerful ways.
But I think at times like this, people want confirmation that the rule of law is not only being applied, but enforced.
Seems everyone is getting away with murder on some level and that can be a dangerous precedent to set for a society.
The economy will eventually get better, health care will eventually improve--as long as there is the political will in Washington, powered by the perpetual insistence of all Americans.
July 17, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have to wonder why any reporter would want to discourage what would be one of the biggest stories of the 21st Century.
In the last week, the WaPo has written three times at least, that if Obama had shown "deference to Bush's choices" for the Supreme Court, the republicans would show deference for his. Now, they are either not understanding how the two party system works or they are unaware of it and more and more, I think it's the latter.
July 17, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't know where I got this impression, but as I understand it when a special prosecuter is named there is a news blackout(of sorts) on subject. People are no longer free to discuss a matter under investigation; hence, speculation and leaks are only thing "media" has to report.
Can anyone help flesh out this thought?
July 17, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink