In a generally favorable explication de texte of today’s Washington Post Rathergate coverage, Power Line’s Hindrocket writes:
My only quarrel with the Post’s recap is that it downplays the importance of the internet to the story, focusing on the belated response of the mainstream media. For example, the Post writes that “major news organizations” began questioning the story on Friday, September 10. In recounting the events that occurred between Friday and Monday, the Post says:
A new problem surfaced when reporters found that the man cited in a 1973 memo as pushing to “sugarcoat” Bush’s record, Col. Walter B. “Buck” Staudt, had been honorably discharged a year and a half earlier.
In fact, we {Power Line] reported this critical fact by the middle of the day on Thursday, based on a tip from a reader, and millions of people knew about the Staudt retirement issue before the mainstream press finally tumbled to it. “Reporters” didn’t “find” this issue, they read it on Power Line and other blogs.
On first glance, the explanations for this diminution of the role of blogs would seem to be in the areas of ideology and/or ego. But soon enough, if not already, the major reason will be economic. All forms of media – blogs, newspapers, magazines, television, radio, etc. – are in competition with each other for eyes and ears. Small as it is, the one that is undoubtedly growing fastest is blogs. Blogads are increasing and within a short time we can expect other forms of advertising and sponsorship, perhaps larger ones. It would be naive to expect the newspapers to be friendly.
UPDATE: Apropos of the above, a Rasmussen Poll made last July indicated a high level of distrust then of the mainstream media. Only 46% found the New York Times “Very Reliable” or “Somewhat Reliable”, with the vast majority of those in the “Somewhat” category.That was bad enough. I wonder what a poll would look like now. [I also wonder how many would find this blog "reliable."-ed. Who asked you?]
(hat tip: Catherine Johnson)
ANOTHER Rasmussen press bias poll here – this one out today about the networks. All are considered biased. Guess which one is in the lead. (No prize, sorry, it’s too easy.)
The MSM was quick to give us the “web” of Republican “connections” to the Swiftboat Vets for Truth. They are apparently incable of telling us about webs like this for the forged memos story.
The MSM is in Gandhi’s position on this: “They are the people and I am their leader, and I must run as fast as I can to catch up with them.”
or, for us insular, unejjicated Americans… Bob McKimson’s bulldog: “You’n me, Spike! Right? That Spike, he is my hee-ro!”
The MSM are fat and lazy. Most of them have taken if for granted that they have a job for life. They merely need to cooperate with the liberal establishment and bash Republicans. This is why these hacks are so dangerous. Dan Rather and CBS are severely hurt by the recent scandal. Still, thereís enough falsely earned credibility to last the other news organizations through to election day. Understand this right here and now: the liberal media perceive this struggle as primarily a battle for their financial security. A victory by John Kerry will somehow save their bank accounts and retirement savings. Is this logical? Probably not, but scared individuals often forsake rational thinking when a crisis rears its ugly head.
George W. Bush only has the odds in his favor. It appears that the Kerry campaign and their MSM cohorts will focus on the troubles in Iraq. Every terrible incident will get front page coverage. Get ready even for some pictures of decapitated Americans on the evening news! The not too subtle message will be that the President has totally botched everything. John Kerry will be presented as the knight in shining armor. And yes, this strategy could be very effective.
If I remember correctly it was the media, including the WaPo that did the story about the museum looting in Iraq and it was the alternative media that first used the words “inside job”. And after everything short of accusing the US marines themselves of stealing antiquities the media was forced to admit there had been no looting at the museum.
But I still hear how we screwed up in Iraq because we allowed all that looting to go on. Well how the hell do they know what was looted and when or if the troops could have really stopped it? They obviously believe whatever some Baathist museum director told them so how much of the other stories are fabricated?
Yes, it is about money and credibility and the longer CBS continues to act like they don’t have a problem the worse it will be. People will just become more suspicious of everything they hear.
Instapundit and the National review have linked to a piece in the American Thinker which claims that Viacom CEO Summer Redstone is dumping his stock:
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3857
The end is very near for the career of Dan Rather and a number of other CBS top echelon people. In just a few minutes Sixty Minutes will be on the air. If tonightís ratings are awful—Rather will have to resign by Tuesday. How does the old saying go? Money talks and bovine excrement walks. Ideology usually takes a back seat to financial self preservation. Favoring John Kerryís campaign is one thing. Declaring personal bankruptcy for his sake is another matter altogether.
David:
Will we ever know for sure how Dan Rather got those documents?
Some say he is protecting the Kerry campaign, but to tell you the truth I think most people blame them anyway so the longer this goes on the worse it is for Kerry.
It won’t be easy for Kerry to convince the American people that he can handle Iraq if they think he can’t handle a campaign. I hope.
Money, or more accurately the developed need for money, has destroyed more free speech than all the dictators who have ever lived. Print and TV depends solely upon advertising money and when big money doesn’t like something they cut you off.
The price for real free speech is no ad money, no under the table payoffs, no working for Bush Blogs or Kerry Blogs.
Stalin showed everyone how to do it and he was able to control much of what was in the New York Times during the 30s and 40s. And don’t think he didn’t control some of Hollywood’s product content; the Hollywood Ten were Communists and admitted taking orders from the Comintern.
Freedom of speech means freedom from direction of any kind.
ìWill we ever know for sure how Dan Rather got those documents?î
Yes, we probably should know in the next few days. The slide in the ratings of CBS news division will force their hand. They have to get this scandal behind them. Itís costing them too much money. Confession comes before redemption. The general public will demand a full disclosure.
Dan Rather is a very wealthy man and set for life. Others at CBS are not so fortunate. Protecting the Kerry campaign is not worth further financial grief. Am I sure that a top Democrat was involved? I feel very confident that this is indeed so. Only someone who is a major player could have persuaded Sixty Minutes to so foolishly ignore the obvious warning signs?
Freedom of speech means freedom from direction of any kind.
What?
ìFreedom of speech means freedom from direction of any kind.î
You are far too utopian. We live in the real world—and bills have got to be paid. Free speech and bringing in some money must go together.
If only human beings were angels. Oh well, we probably wouldnít know what to do with wings on our shoulders anyway.
I’ve recommended it before, but I’ll do so again.
It is, IMO, revealing to poke around at Journalism.org’s latest annual report The State of the News Media 2004
Just a couple tidbits (I won’t bother quoting, go look for yourself)…
The public’s confidence in the MSM is falling and has been for a long time. It seems to be accelerating with newspapers and network news leading the way. Rather, as one might expect, is at the bottom.
And journalists are, apparently, increasingly dissatisfied with their jobs and the companies they work for. This is apparently most pronounced where coverage is “national”.
Additionally, journalists apparently have decreasing (and accelerating) regard for the American public.
The members of the MSM also seem to believe that the cause for the growing disrespect they get from the public and their growing disrepct they have for the public, is that they have not been sufficiently critical of the Bush administration.
There is no end of analysis, data, and commentary at this link. It really is worth poking around at.
Here’s one example tidbit:
We think they are idiots and they think we are idiots. I don’t see much hope for reconciliation – divorce is the only viable option.
I just had to talk My Better Two-Thirds into turning off 60 Minutes. Now I’ll have to suffer through, yet again, When Harry Met Sally. Sigh… the price I have to pay to try and help my nation recover a viable media is high and the pain great.
ìOnly someone who is a major player could have persuaded Sixty Minutes to so foolishly ignore the obvious warning signs?î
Mistake. There should have been no question mark at the end of the above sentence. Also, the Drudgereport is posting a peculiar story concerning the Dan Rather fiasco. Heís apparently interviewing the person who provided the documents to him. What in hell? I know that Rather is something of an emperor around CBS—but this is truly ridiculous.
Knuck,
You are only wasting time and money with that TV thing. Join the revolution! Waste your time and money on the Internet!
knucklehead ó See, she fakes an orgasm and the woman at the next table thinks it’s because of the entrÈe… it’s humor, son…
*sigh* I miss Tracy and Hepburn…
David Thomson: I also saw that squib on Drudge–Why would Rather be interviewing Burkett when even the MSM has gone a long way to discredit Burkett–Several possibilities come to mind: (1)Rather doesnt think folks know Burkett’s, ahem. ideosyncracies, and he will confirm the memos are fake, but accurate. I dont think even Dan is that stupid, but I could well be wrong; (2) this is the setup interview wherein Dan reveals, gasp, that he has been duped. There may be another explanation, because the two possibilities I see are both suicidal for Rather. Anyone have other ideas?
RogerA:
Well there is always the possibility that Rather will instruct Burkett to explain to the world just how horrible the Bushes were to him and what a lousy excuse for a human being George Bush really is.
I have not seen anything from Rather thus far that would lead me to believe he thinks he has done anything amiss. He might jsut intend to keep digging.
Speaking of business I just watched Breaking Point on Fox. The subject was the oil for food scandal. They entitle the piece Blood Money. It was a nice review I thought, but not a lot of new information.
ìThere may be another explanation, because the two possibilities I see are both suicidal for Rather.î
Itís also suicidal for the others at CBS who are not about to retire. The interview makes no sense. Bill Burkett has no credibility whatsoever. This long established TV network is quickly becoming a joke. What does Rather have on CBSí top executives?
Terrye ó If he does, the WaPo has another good week…
Knucklehead:
So, contempt for their readers is going to get them a bigger audience? They think we don’t notice? These guys are nuts. Advertising pays their bills; where the audience goes, the advertising will follow, then where will they be? These guys remind me of a boor at a party, the more folks avoid them, the worse they become. Nuts, just absolutely nuts.
Terrye:
Well there is always the possibility that Rather will instruct Burkett to explain to the world just how horrible the Bushes were to him and what a lousy excuse for a human being George Bush really is.
I think you nailed it. Anyone for starting a pot? I’m in for 10 internet dollars on this one.
Knucklehead,
Thanks for the link. I thought the report was pretty good on the whole, although I found this description of the journalist’s role somewhat offensive: referee, watchdog, interpreter. That role is earned, not conferred by a job title.
Rather believes Burkett.
Why does he believe Burkett?
Because Burkett echos the conventional wisdom in Rather’s circle that Bush got preferential treatment and blew off his responsibilities.
Where did this conventional wisdom originate many years ago?
Burkett and Barnes.
See, it must be true, Burkett confirms it!
Friends, this is insanity.
WaPo via Drudge: CBS will admit error tomorrow night.
“WaPo via Drudge: CBS will admit error tomorrow night.”
So maybe the rumor I heard that Dan will announce his resignation tomorrow, might be true . . .
but if so, why did they send him to Dallas?