While the press conference was ongoing, I was watching the video of the Breitbart-Weiner show in my computer’s right monitor, and had Weiner’s bete-noire, Tweetdeck, open in my left monitor. So during the mad rush of Tweets during the conference, when Jonah Goldberg retweeted the New York Times’ response, I thought for sure he was spoofing them.
No, the New York Times, which rumor has it was once something called a “newspaper,” actually tweeted, “Representative Anthony D. Weiner Acknowledges Communication With Women Online.”
Oh. Well, that’s certainly a nothingburger then. Move along, no news to see here.
Jonah, re that New York Times “news alert” — “Representative Anthony D. Weiner Acknowledges Communication With Women Online” — nobody who could write that headline with a straight face should be in the news business.
It’s one thing to lose the story to Andrew Breitbart because you’re too snooty to sully yourself with Weiner’s briefs. It’s another thing to pile on and support Weiner’s slandering of Breitbart out of ideological solidarity. But, when the congressman himself is at a press conference admitting he’s e-mailed explicit photos of himself around the Internet and you choose that headline to convey the story to your readers, you’re basically telling them you’re the paper for court eunuchs.
Which dovetails perfectly with Andrew Klavan’s remarks at the Tatler:
Watching Breitbart crush Weiner beneath his heel like an insignificant weiner, it occurs to me that Breitbart’s genius – and he really is an information genius – consists almost entirely of two pieces of knowledge: one, leftists will lie knowing the media will back them and two, the media will back them. With those two principles, he manages to make utter fools of both lying leftists and their corrupt mainstream media cronies again and again. Not to mention again. It’s wonderful.
And this is what the MSM both dreads and can’t come to grips with: much as every aging hippie wants to recapture the halcyon days of 1967 and the “Summer of Love,” the MSM wants to recapture that golden moment in 1974, when the news consisted of three commercial TV networks, PBS, AP, Reuters, and the writers’ bullpens at the New York Times and the Washington Post. (See also the JournoList, which was an attempt to recapture that moment in an era of otherwise decentralized media.)
I think Andrew knows this as well — which adds to his fun, and the fun that Rush, Drudge, and the starboard half of the Blogosphere are having reminding them that the legacy part of the phrase “the legacy media” means that they’re no longer the gatekeepers of information, and that 1974 is fading into the distance almost as much as the 1960s.
Which is why, no matter what happens to Weiner, today was a landmark day for New Media.
Related: Victor Davis Hanson on the Ruling Class and “The Collapse of a Rotten Edifice.”
Update: Former Democratic speechwriter turned cheerleader Chris Matthews, who dallied with the nascent media of the right in the 1990s because of his disgust with Bill Clinton, is so eager to circle the wagons to rehabilitate Weiner, it’s come to this: “Maybe [Weiner's Wife] Was Partly Responsible:”
The Anchoress has a nice summation of the reaction of old media:
This is the problem with the mainstream media in a nutshell. They “know” the people they’re supposed to be covering, and they consider themselves “friends” of those people. And it has ruined them. As you listen to [Barbara] Walters, all you see is passionate advocacy; not a newswoman concerned with the truth of a story, but a partisan doing everything she can to divert attention from a story she doesn’t like — even to comparing a private citizen on a bus to a sitting congressman having some sort of cyber-engagement in his office — and championing her “friend.”
This has never been a nice story, which is why I haven’t written about it until now. But I still am less interested in Weiner than in how the press reacted to this story. Some were willing to believe him, simply because he said they should. Some seemed like they didn’t want to believe him, but didn’t want to not believe him, even more. The usual partisans tried to blame and smear the usual partisans.
We don’t actually have a genuine press any more.
Old Media tried to hang onto the “objective” canard for far too long — future historians will argue long and hard when that word ceased to be accurate, though.
Related: “The Borg deactivate,” at least temporarily. And don’t miss Richard Fernandez on “The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” — as Richard asks, “What does the truth look like before it’s revealed? Well what patterns are you prepared to see?” And how much does your ideology require you to circle the wagons?
The other thing to understand about this press conference, both what Breitbart and Weiner said, is that everything simply went in one ear and out the other.
The only tangible thing the big media will take away from this is they can’t let Anthony Weiner be the face of House Democrats, and from the local angle, they can’t allow him to get within striking distance of the Democratic nomination for NYC mayor, especially if Bill Bratton runs on the Republican side (the thought of Democrats being shut out of City Hall possibly for 28 straight years if Bratton was to win is too horrific for the Big Apple’s media, including the Times, to contemplate). Nothing Breitbart said to them will cause any introspection — if anything, it will only make them want to redouble their efforts to get Andrew because of they way he exposed one of their heroes and embarrassed them.
Echoing John, I wonder how many months it’ll be before Mr. Weiner faces a ‘political-career assassination’ near the scale that John Edwards is experiencing.
They said Weiner would rise again, but erections have consequences.
Due to Breitbart’s stunning effectiveness at uncovering the truth, I suspect Soros just gave the DNC another $50 million, and he and the DNC just hired another 100 people, whose only job will be to destroy Breitbart.
ABC, NBC, CBS and NPR will probably also set aside $5 million each, and hire 30 people for that effort.
Ed, you surpassed yourself with this post.
If Teddy Kennedy, Bill Clinton and Eliot Spitzer can be rehabilitated then why not Weiner? In 6 months or so, when there is a new controversey say about Medicare, who you gonna call, but Weiner, to shout at Republicans on national TV? Really now, just how long do you think he can be kept off MSNBC?
Fred,
Those in your list did not escape unscathed, e.g. Teddy the Swimmer did not get to be president, not even candidate. Weiner faces a different climate and his handling of the whole sordid-stupid affair was even poorer than Clinton’s. This guy may be toast and I hope he carries many members of his ilk with him.
Wake up NY!
It does make you wonder if even one of the reporters or editors watching Breitbart crush the JournOLists in that room thought to him/herself “Maybe I should re-examine why it is I am in this business. Maybe I need to start telling the story instead of being used as a shield for Democrats”.
But I’m not holding my breath.
You’re right not to hold your breath. With “journalism schools” constantly encouraging the little minds full of mush to go Change the World, we’re not likely to see an improvement in the MSM anytime soon.
But thank God that Breitbart and O’Keefe keep plugging away. If there was justice in this world, they would be first in line for Pulitzers and Presidential Medals of Freedom.
Babs Walters’ career should have ended in disgrace after the publication of “Radical Chic.” That it didn’t is all you need to know about the media.
Good post, but at least three of your links are bad. Couldn’t read Hanson, Fernandez or “The Borg Deactivate”.
Thanks. Try them now.
Have you seen the trailer for the documentary on the NYT? Talk about nostalgia…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhw6OeTVcwM
I’ve got it – great new CNN show
WeinerSpitzer
Is it a requisite to have a Germanic last name? Weiner, Spitzer, Schwarzenegger…
Breitbart plays his port leaning subjects and legacy media like a fine violin. Whereas the legacy media has fallen into the habit of just fudging the news Breitbart has revived the art of objective investigative journalism, reliant on principle and brutal honesty, and taken it to levels never seen or imagined. The man is pure genius, and the dullards have no hope of catching up, so all they can do is falsely slander him…until he drops the next shoe, then all they can do is duck and cover.
Why Nixon? It’s more reminiscent of Clinton in the Land of the Blue Dress.
Because Nixon and Watergate was that perfect moment when the New Left owned all the major national news outlets.
Thanks to Weinergate and Sarah Palin’s bus tour, Legacy Media (i love that term) is starting to get an inkling that they are quickly becoming irrelevant. What they’ll never ‘get’ however is that they did it to themselves.
Did anyone else notice that AndrewB threatened the libs to pay it back 100 fold if they pulled their usual Clintonesque stunt of trashing the women involved?
Way to go Andrew.
Ed, I believe the very last shred of MSM objectivity occurred during the Clinton impeachment. From that point forwards, they’d turned bitter and vindictive.
“Representative Anthony D. Weiner Acknowledges Communication With Women Online”
Let me get out my George Orwell dictionary and let’s see what happens:
“Acknowlege” – see: caught lying.
“Communication” – see: contacting anonymous whores.
“Women” – reference: anonymous whores.
“Online” – see: hanging one’s package out a window.
“And how much does your ideology require you to circle the wagons?”
It occurred to me when I read this, that for many of them, it may not be about ideology. It may be just about Party. On the Right, we have Conservatives, whose views ARE the Party platform. We have lots of “moderates”, though. They will vote the Party line, not because they love the positions or people, but out of Party identification. Privately, many of them loathe Conservatives, and the feeling is reciprocated. Snowe and Collins have been voting lockstep with the Party for about 2 years now, as a couple examples, but I cannot help but get the sense that maybe they aren’t Conservatives.
The Left has some Conservative Democrats. They almost never buck the Leftists who are in charge, however, because they stand with their Party. Of course, the last election denuded their ranks.
DAn Rather wanter the Bush National Guard story to be true so much that he published obviously fake documents to influence a national election. He absolutley RUINED his reputation and career because of his ideology.
When you list the media outlets available to us in ’74, don’t forget the late, unlamented UPI (United Press International). Since they gave AP competition, AP actually had to try at being objective in those days, not that they always did!
‘Old Media tried to hang onto the “objective” canard for far too long’
The old media is a true representation of an authoritarians ideology. Before radio and TV every town had more than one newspaper, where no newspaper could promulgate a lie without getting exposed by the other. At the time all newsman were partisan hacks as is today which I have no objection whatsoever.
The objectivity canard took hold when the left monopolized the news business
during the infancy of Radio,TV. Now that that monopoly is gone it is fun to watch the left destroying itself before our very eyes.
Thank you Mr. Gore for inventing the INTERNET.
Ed, fine post. The lunatics can’t give it up though, that is, they can’t try a little honesty. Things have taken on the aspects of a war and no amount of humiliations and gaffes matter to them. Like fanatics they plod on, getting caught again and again, hoping they can reach at least the morons of the country.
Not to bright themselves, ignorant of almost everything except politics, they view central, powerful government as the end all, instead of the problem.
Weinerman confirms sending penis shot! Now that’s a catchy title. How about this: Penis envy runs amok? Nah, that would upset the NYT feminists. Maybe Weinerman should have claimed he was practicing for a Kalvin Kein add? This jock’s for you!
The day the nation comes to rely on the blogger cesspool of the internet for legitimate ['news'], the nation is lost…if not already. Their only serious audience (significant already) is the masses who are to lazy and or lack the capacity to become independently informed from first-hand sources and to independently reason. Then of course, they have their loyal sheeple who need their daily LSD fix to escape facts and reality.
Folks have become seriously confused over what a legitimate news journalist is and what commentators, opinionators, political assassins and geopolitical philosophers are. The latter nearly always are playing a self-serving game for personal ego and financial gains….hawking trinkets and or theirs and others publishings, creating drom their followings, political Tribalism and clan-ism. They further create endless and deep divisions with no intent of motivating consensus or unity strategies within the nations majority…inflamers they are and problem solvers they’re not!
NOPE! There are few if any, ‘bloggers’ on the internet who are legitimate news journalists. Cable news and traditional networks along with some traditional print news media on the other hand have small armies of real news journalist around the nation and the world, in the trenches where [real] news is being made. That is not to say there are not certifiable nuts in the field like Geraldo and many ‘independent’ biased political activists in the trenches reinterpreting legitimate news as it happens…there is!
Unless one goes to ‘legitimate’ first-hand sources, all the folks claiming to be news journalist are as corrupted as any other segements of government and society at-large.
Case in point. Any so-called ‘news journalist’ who would attempt to correlate “Weinergate” to Nixon’s Watergate is being disingenuous. There simply are not the motives or criminal elements to correlate. Now, if the journalist is really speaking to the elements of human natures denial in self defense, that would be relevent but not in any seense of newsworthiness….more philosophical.
Whats really happening in the “Weinergate” saga is one side of media pundits circled in support around a moraless, petty, in the sewer, political assassin who went out and sought an ‘equal’ to assassinate. Washington would be a literal ghost town if the Breitbart types were not biased political activists.
Breitbart hasn’t, to the best of my knowledge, ever exposed anything in legitimate journalist fashion, that has not already been general public knowledge throughout the nation. Everybody should know that their government and elected officials are morally and politically corrupt….ACORN was/is morally and legally corrupt….Planned Parenthood is morally and legally corrupt….and on down the line. I’m betting that no more than a dozen folks on this site….pundits or commentors could pass a morals polygraph test. This whole petty process is nothing more than political hypocrisy around some motivation for a desired outcome advantage. Unless laws are proven to have been violated these kinds of nonsense is wrong no matter ones politcal party and ideological leanings. American is no longer a morals based nation thanks to the generations spawned post WWII so, maybe its time to move on to the real and critical problems facing the nation with far less petty hypocrisy.
T.T.,
Hopefully, someday, you’ll find a news and opinion outlet with a level of Olympian perfection that measures up to your standards. I wish you luck in your quest.
Ed….durn, seems I may have hit a nerve. I rather enjoy some of your writings but, my friend, I don’t rely on any pundits in any medium to source news. I still have the capacity to seek legitimate first-hand information from which I can still independently think and reason through to form my own conclusions. There is plenty wrong inside the world of politics on all sides just as always and it seem rather disingenuous to reflect one side as rightous and the other as demons. That borders on propaganda tactics! Punditry is not factually objective! Todays pundits are mean spirited and divisive! Todays pundits generally perpetuate hypocritical environment! It is laregly a bunch who are self-serving, biased and personalized, rarely ever motivated to problem solving over problem identification…..reguritating the same fundamental problems over and over with a new superficial face.
How many pundits can you name whose motivation it is, to unite the nation around solving problems rather than condemning personalities and ideologies that actually have more in common than difference.
I just think theres a better way to win the wars within than with the tactics of most pundits, commentators and opinionators.
T.T.,
No nerves damaged; I simply had read your near-identical comments in (I believe) Tony Katz’s post on new media. But given your quest to build the perfect media, and given how easy it is to get started publishing on the Web, instead of sniping at the rest of us, why not build something that meets your criteria? Get started here for free, and then send me a link once it’s going. Or if you have a Website already, please send me a link to it; I’m sure there will be much to be learned from observing it in action.
Now Ed! Settle down hoss! In my 83 years, I’ve never seen so many that can’t handle a little criticism as there are today. In my time, independent thinking and reasoning right along with being able to take criticism, was considered a valuable assets but, evidently not today. I admit that I’m probably not considered very cordial in my interactions on here but, give me a break! I’m not accustomed to having dialog in an environment of totalianism dictation. Well thats not true! I served 32 years in our military.
But what is true, is that the following 33 years I’ve learned that I can again think and reason for myself with the freedoms to express my conslusions. Tell me, is that not the rules on here Ed? Oppps! I almost committed a capital offense by calling you a whippersnapper but thank goodness, a celestial angel stepped in and restrained me.
But back on point! In case you haven’t figured it out Ed, I’m looong into retirement. A very healthy retirement but, retirement nonetheless. Now you may think that I would have the time to devote to such an endeavor as you directed I take on (and I do thank your for your ‘suggestion’) but let me inform you of a couple small details. I have a real life in the world of reality thanks to Ma, a big family, a rather large family agri enterprise I still keep a finger tip on and way to many friends. I’d much rather be free to drop by here and give you and a few others a little galling.
Hopefully, you fear me far less than what is happening to our nation at the hands of broken people and a broken government. If not, kindly advise me and I’ll turn left at Albuquerque and avoid your commentary. Fair nuff?
T.T.,
Hey, I didn’t know you were 83 — and believe it or not, I do understand how frustrated you feel about the current state of America. (Still though, I’ll bet there’s more people than you think who have their own blogs at that age.) But still, it seems frustrating to hear you complain about Tony, Andrew Breitbart and myself. We’re all people who got sick of what we were hearing from the MSM and decided to do something about it. No media is perfect, no person is perfect, but still — I’d rather have a situation where the right has a platform to fight back, than to go back to, as I said in the post above, the days of three TV networks, three wire services, and two or three big national newspapers. And no way to fight back at what you know are lies.
The Blogosphere is far from perfect, but it beats the alternative. And as I think you mentioned in one of your comments to Tony’s article, there’s always C-Span, which also didn’t exist in the mid-’70s, if you want raw, long form video.
In other words, there’s an endless variety of news and opinion sources that are now available to you, allowing you to create exactly the news feed you’d like. And that’s an amazing development, despite its excesses.
“.. so, maybe its time to move on to the real and critical problems facing the nation ….”
That’s what Weiner said in his early press conference and that’s what every politician says when their ideas and methods are exposed to be ideologically inflexible and self serving – or they are caught red handed doing something that 90% of us find unsavory.
Character matters. Ideology matters. Those in the blogosphere who expose ideologues with bad character do a great service to this country. I won’t be as kind as Mr. Driscoll. I think you missed the whole point and lesson of his article: The MSM, wedded to the left’s ideology, refuses to acknowledge the link between one’s character and bias and one’s ability to act honestly and logically in understanding and fixing problems. First let’s expose and get rid of these people – and then the problems can be addressed.
Geeze…I’ve been around far to long to fall for the games perpetuated most political pundit sites. Lets cut to the chase here.
Whomever has a message, regardless of politcal party, regardless of who owns the press, that the majority of the people endorse, that will be the winning message. For the past eighty years, the GOP has essentially submitted to the socialist-progressives message of social and labor agendas and did little to nothing to reverse the resulting consequences.
By in-large, the nations churches of Christanity prostituted themselves over the past fifty years to the political motives of social justice regardless of who owned the press. Likewise, the entertainment industry perpetuated the messaging declining morality to a willing majority of society. Bottomline? The ‘press’ had little to do with bringing the nation to this point of circumstance, socially, economically or politically. The press and politics, contrary to populist belief, plays to and [follows] the environment created by the majority of society at-large.
Everything including morality starts in the communities within the family, neighbor-to-neighbor, etc. To the best of my knowledge, no ‘news’ media has ever created and peddled infidelity, vulgar language, pornography or any other forms of immorality and corruption. Likewise, I know of no traditional ‘news’ media that created and perpetuated the socialist-progressive messaging. Furthermore, I know of no traditional ‘news’ media that has ever denied any political party of their messaging.
Lets face some factual reality here! The internet evolved to allow anybody and everybody to become self published pundits in every discipline known, to include so news and journalism. The internet politcal ‘pundits’ in both cable primetime and on the internet are struggling to be recognized and gain superiority, purpoting to be news journalist, over traditional news journalists. Its capitalist a war for eventual financial gains once enjoyed soley by the tradition news media! A war that honestly is, in many ways leveraged in favor of the internet pundits. For only the price of an internet connection they can draw folks by the millions who are chomping at the bit to participate blindly in further dividing the nation. Each site has and increases their loyal following of little totalitarians essentially preaching “I’m good and you’re evil”….”I’m right and you’re wrong” battles designed by the strategic bias of their publishing pundits. Using the internet they can play to the weaknesses of human nature of millions of folks, not to better the nation and the world but rather, to reap financial gain….with far less financial investment than their traditional counterparts.
Show me a politcal pundit site that is dedicated to the attempt of intellectually solving problems rather than superficialy inflame. Show me a political pundit site that ‘fairly’ represents all sides of an issue or political party. Thus, the hypocrisy of their claims of being legitimate news journalists. The latter applies regardless of their political leanings or party representation.
I would hope one day soon, these kinds of pundit sites would legitimize themselves as professionals of news journalism and allow all sides to be fairly and freely repesented so potential constructive dialog can be had between all opponents. No one politcal party and ideology is going to fix the problems facing the nation….only a majority of the nations citizens coming to a compromised consensus among themselves can accomplish such a task. If and when that ever happens, the elected officials will follow the majority consensus. Today, their is no national consensus on any issue thus, the elected officials can find no consensus by with to legislate on behalf of the [entire] nation.
Again, the nation is broken from the bottom up….not the top down! In my opinion, perpetuating continued and further national division is a losing strategy….. though, it may eventually become a financially winning strategy for a few. Now, if anybody wishes to expel me for independent thinking, reasoning and expressing my views…by all means, do so.
T.T.,
You can either complain about us all in the comments pages that we provide, or you can build the Website you’d like to read. The choice is yours.
Ed….kindly read my reply to you up above.
Is there something I said that is factually incorrect or are you just thin-skinned? I’m hardly “complaining” but rather, stating my independent concluded opinions. What points are you having a problem with? Are my conclusions in violation of some law or rules? Help me out since you’ve nearly suffered a heart attack or stroke at my every commenting. I certainly don’t want to be responsible for your teetering with death or impairment from my comments. Well, that’s not really true! If you truly own a blue hat like you display on your logo…I might be tempted if I thought I could get it.
have a hot toddy and relax! My opinions don’t carry with them, the power to crash your world. Well, thats not true either! They may have the power to bruise one’s ego.
But then, Ma’s been doing that to me for decades and heck I’m doing just fine…maybe even better as a result.
T.T.,
You really seem to think you’re constantly winding me up, and yet I’ve tried to respond as coolly as possible. Actually, I’m not sure what it is about my comments that’s having such an emotional reaction on you.
Oh, that’s easy — it’s a Lock & Co. Trilby I picked up in London a decade ago — but thanks to the Internet, anybody can own one.
Ed…thank you for your thoughtful and expanded comments up above! We’re really not on opposing teams! I just come from a reference point in time when the nation shared some common threads in the fabric that made this such great nation. I don’t believe that a nation can stand being as divided on every large and minute issue as it is today. The reconstruction of our nation has to start with some kind of national unity being forged among the people…and lest we forget, the government is a representation of the people. I’ll just leave it there.
Thanks again for a more substantive comment above.
“To the best of my knowledge, no ‘news’ media has ever created and peddled infidelity, vulgar language, pornography or any other forms of immorality and corruption. Likewise, I know of no traditional ‘news’ media that created and perpetuated the socialist-progressive messaging.”
Oh, certainly, the New York Times has been doing this at least since my youth, but admittedly I’m only on my 50′s. At least if you include promiscuity in your list. And The New York Times controls the old media, de facto.
I live in a small,insular city. How am I to keep informed without access to the varied media? While I am a big picture person it’s hard to get where I live.
Until last night I did not realize what an ugly person Representative Weiner is.I saw clips of him in attack dog frenzy. No reasoned argument from him. Dare I say he was Don Rickles with hair?
We!…Geezers!…ROCK!
When was the New York Times a newspaper? Admittedly, I’m only 53, but I don’t recall it ever being one. This isn’t new, you know; in the 1850′s it was basically admitted that the age of the non-partisan newspaper is over; maybe all we need today is some admission of bias (hah!) from the MSM.
Really, a simple comparision of the press reaction to Nixon and Clinton scandals, and the results of that difference, makes me conclude that Watergate was simple a political coup d’etat.