Memo to NBC

[Sam F]

More than a few former media people are making statements like this one:

Memo to NBC: What the hell is wrong with you?
June 19, 2012 By Deacon Greg Kandra
Seriously.

First, there was the Trayvon Martin boondoggle [about the edited 911 tapes] a few months ago.

Then yesterday, evidence of some creative editing regarding Mitt Romney’s visit to a Wawa in Pennsylvania.

Today, we have Andrea Mitchell’s spectacularly lame followup to “criticism of the Romney clip edit” — which amounted to Ms. Mitchell saying, with a sigh and a frown, “Oh, bother. Fine. Here’s what we left out.” She failed to acknowledge what the “criticism” entailed; she neglected to point out how the editing misrepresented the event being covered; and she offered nothing resembling an apology or an admission of responsibility for something that was, as a matter of fact, irresponsible.

I’m tired. Truly. I’ve grown weary of trying to defend the indefensible and explain the inexplicable. For years, people have stomped their feet and pounded their fists and snorted “Liberal media bias!” and I’ve always tut-tutted and shooshed them and said, “No, no. Calm down. They meant well. It was just a misunderstanding. A mistake. These things happen.” I spent over 25 years working in the oft-reviled Mainstream Media and I saw up close and personal how the sausage was made. I knew the people who wielded the knives and wore the aprons, and could vouch (most of the time, anyway) for their good intentions.

But now?

Forget it. I’m done. You deserve what they’re saying about you. It’s earned. You have worked long and hard to merit the suspicion, acrimony, mistrust and revulsion that the media-buying public increasingly heaps upon you. You have successfully eroded any confidence, dispelled any trust, and driven your audience into the arms of the Internet and the blogosphere, where biases are affirmed and like-minded people can tell each other what they hold to be true, since nobody believes in objective reality any more. You have done a superlative job of diminishing what was once a great profession and undermining one of the vital underpinnings of democracy, a free press.

Good job.

I just have one question:

What the hell is wrong with you guys?

It's not good when former insiders say things like that... not good at all.

The original + links is here:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deacons...rong-with-you/

[Norman Bernstein]

More than a few former media people are making statements like this one:

It's not good when former insiders say things like that... not good at all.

The original + links is here:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deacons...rong-with-you/

If I offered up a half dozen prime examples of conservative bias, in the 'mainstream media', would you be willing to concede that your obvious assumption about so-called 'liberal bias' might possibly be wrong?

[wardd]

If I offered up a half dozen prime examples of conservative bias, in the 'mainstream media', would you be willing to concede that your obvious assumption about so-called 'libera bias' might possibly be wrong?

no.

[Waddie]

Sam, nobody watches the big three networks for news, or much else, these days. Their dominance is over, kaput. For the most part, audience size has been so diluted by 100+ channels that no news outlet can reach more than a handful of viewers, usually about the size of their studio audience. Well, maybe except FOX, and their numbers are great largely because they have a monopoly on conservative TV news while there are dozens of liberal news organizations who have to compete against each other for viewers. Now on TV we're effectively reduced to cheap comedies, reality shows, old re-runs, partisan news and other crap.

regards,
Waddie

[Gerarddm]

Wardd shows the adage "don't confuse me with the facts, my mind's made up". A sad state of affairs.

[Sam F]

If I offered up a half dozen prime examples of conservative bias, in the 'mainstream media', would you be willing to concede that your obvious assumption about so-called 'liberal bias' might possibly be wrong?

Sure. But then you'd have two other problems.
First - a definition of conservative (and Liberal while you're at it).
And secondly and more importantly, you'd have only demonstrated another sort of bias.

I don't mind honest advocacy of a particular viewpoint - I don't think most people mind that.
What I and obviously others mind very much is the pretense of objectivity where the situation is just the opposite.

[Norman Bernstein]

Sure. But then you'd have two other problems.
First - a definition of conservative (and Liberal while you're at it).

Doesn't your OP presume that you already have a definition in mind?

And secondly and more importantly, you'd have only demonstrated another sort of bias.

Perhaps.... but your OP implies a specific bias. Since it would be utterly unreasonable to expect the mainstream media to be completely objective, 100% of the time, wouldn't examples of both liberal and conservative bias, in relatively equal quantities, imply that the average bias was NOT 'liberal', as your OP suggests?

I don't mind honest advocacy of a particular viewpoint - I don't think most people mind that.
What I and obviously others mind very much is the pretense of objectivity where the situation is just the opposite.

I wouldn't disagree.... but your thread assumes that it's ALWAYS a specific bias, with a specific orientation... and that has not been proved, especially when there are so many contrary examples.

[Waddie]

SamF; What I and obviously others mind very much is the pretense of objectivity where the situation is just the opposite.

I also yearn for the good old days when a news paper was proud of their bias, and was usually named after it. That was before the J schools of the 1960's insisted that everyone pretend to be "objective".

I would love for MSNBC to announce to the world that they are (or want to be) the voice of liberals everywhere, and for FOX to drop the "fair and balanced" motto, and proclaim that they are proud to represent the views of conservatives across the globe. At least Rush and some of the liberal radio people are honest about their allegiance.

regards,
Waddie

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

[Norman Bernstein]

I also yearn for the good old days when a news paper was proud of their bias, and was usually named after it. That was before the J schools of the 1960's insisted that everyone pretend to be "objective".

You're absolutely correct; the notion of 'objective journalism' is a relatively recent phenomenon, and historically, most news sources were not only highly biased, but completely open about it (I don't really care whether they are 'open' about it or not, since the biases of particular media outlets are obvious, anyhow)....

...but it's disingenous, at the very least.... and frankly, pretty dumb, IMHO.... to rail against one particular news outlet for being biased, when the countrervailing examples are so obvious. FOX news is just as much a 'mainstream' media site as is NBC.... and since it was correctly pointed out that people no longer depend on just the three national broadcast networks to get their news, it means that MSNBC, FOX, and every other cable news outlet... as well as every website.... is now 'mainstream'.

So, it's perfectly fine to bitch about MSNBC for being largely (but not exclusively) 'liberal' in its content, it's just a partisan rant. The very same thing, i.e., complaints about bias, would even be MORE accurate against FOX news.

[PhaseLockedLoop]

What everybody's actually talking about here is bias toward Democrats or Republicans. The words "liberal" and "conservative" refer to principles, and political discourse in the US is utterly unprincipled.

[David W Pratt]

Have to say I disagree, Sam. It is good when people in the know say stuff like your quote. But I concede, it is bad when they have to.

[Sam F]

Sam, nobody watches the big three networks for news, or much else, these days....

Well, I don't - but then I'm nobody too.

Their dominance is over, kaput. For the most part, audience size has been so diluted by 100+ channels that no news outlet can reach more than a handful of viewers, usually about the size of their studio audience. Well, maybe except FOX, and their numbers are great largely because they have a monopoly on conservative TV news while there are dozens of liberal news organizations who have to compete against each other for viewers. Now on TV we're effectively reduced to cheap comedies, reality shows, old re-runs, partisan news and other crap.

That's pretty close to what I have observed.

However, there still is an audience for Network News out there - it's just older and shrinking.

[Sam F]

What everybody's actually talking about here is bias toward Democrats or Republicans. The words "liberal" and "conservative" refer to principles, and political discourse in the US is utterly unprincipled.

That's good!
Unfortunately the unprincipled behavior isn't quite so uniform as that.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

[Sam F]

Doesn't your OP presume that you already have a definition in mind?

Sure I have definitions in mind (hint: Dictionaries are mighty hand things), but I asked you, remember?

Perhaps.... but your OP implies a specific bias.

I hope I made it clear that it is not bias per se that is the problem. Outright lying and/or falsification of evidence (via "creative" editing) is inexcusable.
And it's stupid, since in today's world it is nearly impossible to get away with it.

Or as Deacon Kandra would say... "What the hell is wrong with these people?"

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

[Phillip Allen]

example: The US lost the Tet offencive... the news said so... repeatedly

[Sam F]

example: The US lost the Tet offencive... the news said so... repeatedly

The news has a long history of interfering in wars... that's one example from my lifetime.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

[Sam F]

Maybe this will work....



or... Follow the Ideology

http://www.youtube.com/user/pajamasm...e=results_main

[Phillip Allen]

unfortunately, he is preaching to the choir and our dissenting choir has their own song to sing...

[Norman Bernstein]

I hope I made it clear that it is not bias per se that is the problem. Outright lying and/or falsification of evidence (via "creative" editing) is inexcusable.

As would be things like taking quotes out of context, etc.... but you still have failed to demonstrate that it is a problem which itself is 'biased' (i.e., the implication that only 'liberal' media sources do it), or that it is primarily found in a narrow definition of what used to be called 'mainstream media'.

I see that additional clips have been posted, from both sides of the political spectrum, to demonstrate the point.

The 'mainstream' media these days includes hundreds of sources, not just three. The 'big three' sources essentially offer 22 minutes of news each evening, which isn't enough time to express much of any major idea, let alone cover the news of the day. On the overall, I think they do a fairly good job.... not perfect, buty for what they are, not bad.

[Sam F]

unfortunately, he is preaching to the choir and our dissenting choir has their own song to sing...

Sure but his (Whittle's) point about what would be happening if this were a Republican President is spot on. It'd be Watergate all over again.
And I'm going to make a prediction...
If Obama is reelected, Fast & Furious will be his downfall.

[Sam F]

As would be things like taking quotes out of context, etc...

Not necessarily. Quotes taken out of context to prove hypocrisy can be great fun.

but you still have failed to...

Provide a definition... right? Lacking that you really can't make any case since your terms remain undefined.

demonstrate that it is a problem which itself is 'biased' (i.e., the implication that only 'liberal' media sources do it),

Nor will I prove that, since I never made that case. If you're re-read Deacon Kandra's statement, you'll see he specifically indites the "Mainstream Media"
You may also note that he blames them for their own decline of influence. Really, do read it.

I see that additional clips have been posted, from both sides of the political spectrum, to demonstrate the point.

Both sides? Defined as...?

The 'mainstream' media these days includes hundreds of sources, not just three.

That's your definition. Not Kandra's or mine, or apparently many many others.

[Norman Bernstein]

Hmmmm... I really don't think that arguing about the bias of mainstream media works really well when your counterpoint is this:

PJ Media is a media company and operator of an eponymous conservative opinion and commentary website.
Founded in 2004 by a network primarily, but not exclusively, made up of conservatives and libertarians led by writer Roger L. Simon

Listening to Bill Whittle in your video clip, I got as far as when he called Barack Obama and Eric Holder 'unrelentingly evil'.

Here's a clue: this isn't journalism.

[Phillip Allen]

Hmmmm... I really don't think that arguing about the bias of mainstream media works really well when your counterpoint is this:



Listening to Bill Whittle in your video clip, I got as far as when he called Barack Obama and Eric Holder 'unrelentingly evil'.

Here's a clue: this isn't journalism.

so... according to you:

2000 untrackable guns were NOT sold to Mexicans without their government's knowledge?
300 people were NOT killed with those untrackable guns?
Obama did NOT tell Sarah Brady that he must sneak gun control onto the American public against their wishes (under the radar)?

[Norman Bernstein]

2000 untrackable guns were NOT sold to Mexicans without their government's knowledge?

Hmmm... I think Bill Whittle argues, in the video, that it WAS with the Mexican government's knowledge.

300 people were NOT killed with those untrackable guns?

I don't know.

Obama did NOT tell Sarah Brady that he must sneak gun control onto the American public against their wishes (under the radar)

I don't know about that, either. What I DO know is that 1) Since Obama was elected, he has not promoted or campaigned for any additional gun control laws, and 2) The 'Fast and Furious' program was initiated under President Bush.... and I don't believe that Barack Obama had any involvement with it, whatsoever.

As best as I can tell, F&F was a well intentioned, but very badly managed, initiative to try to trace the path of illegally exported guns to Mexican drug cartels. It went very badly, and a couple of DEA agents ended up being killed by some of those guns. It's a tragedy.....

....but, as far as I can tell, there simply is no 'scandal', other than the one the right wing is trying to trump up. We've seen this before: Ken Starr, $70M wasted, with NOTHING as a result.

[Phillip Allen]

Hmmm... I think Bill Whittle argues, in the video, that it WAS with the Mexican government's knowledge.



I don't know.



I don't know about that, either. What I DO know is that 1) Since Obama was elected, he has not promoted or campaigned for any additional gun control laws, and 2) The 'Fast and Furious' program was initiated under President Bush.... and I don't believe that Barack Obama had any involvement with it, whatsoever.

As best as I can tell, F&F was a well intentioned, but very badly managed, initiative to try to trace the path of illegally exported guns to Mexican drug cartels. It went very badly, and a couple of DEA agents ended up being killed by some of those guns. It's a tragedy.....

....but, as far as I can tell, there simply is no 'scandal', other than the one the right wing is trying to trump up. We've seen this before: Ken Starr, $70M wasted, with NOTHING as a result.

NOrman, you are wrong on a number of points... what I am wondering is if you were aware of your errors and wrote what you did anyway

[Norman Bernstein]

NOrman, you are wrong on a number of points... what I am wondering is if you were aware of your errors and wrote what you did anyway

And you're decidedly wrong on that Sarah Brady story, which gets a 'pants on fire' rating from Politifact:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...radar-nra-say/

Notice how lies get propagated? Isn't this what SamF was complaining about?

[Phillip Allen]

And you're decidedly wrong on that Sarah Brady story, which gets a 'pants on fire' rating from Politifact:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...radar-nra-say/

Notice how lies get propagated? Isn't this what SamF was complaining about?

so... THAT means that the 300 Mexicans weren't killed with untrackable guns sold to them on Obama's watch

[Norman Bernstein]

With regard to F&F, from Politifact:

The multi-agency federal arms-trafficking investigation took place from late 2009 to early 2011 -- during Obama’s presidency -- under the Phoenix office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, an agency of the Justice Department.

In the operation, agents purposely allowed weapons to be illegally purchased and circulated on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border, as the Los Angeles Times said in a Dec. 8, 2011, news story. Two of the weapons turned up after a U.S. Border Patrol agent was killed in southern Arizona, the paper said, though for a January 2012 fact check, we found no information supporting a claim that ballistics tests confirmed that the found weapons killed the agent.

The Times said scores of other guns in the operation were reportedly used in violent crimes in Mexico, adding: "While the aim of Fast and Furious was to track weapons, instead it ended up significantly arming the Mexican drug cartels."

And did Obama have a hand in the endeavor? We looked for indications.

In a March 22, 2011, interview with Univision, posted online by CBS News, Obama said neither he nor Attorney General Eric Holder authorized Fast and Furious and pointed out that the operation was under internal investigation. "We don’t have all the facts," Obama said.

Asked if he was informed about the operation, Obama replied: "Absolutely not. This is a pretty big government, the United States government. I’ve got a lot of moving parts." He added: "Our policy is to ramp up the interdiction" or capture "of guns flowing south, because that’s contributing to some of the security problems that are taking place in Mexico."

In an interview the same day with CNN Español and an October 2011 interview with ABC News, Obama said he learned of Fast and Furious from news reports. He further said to CNN: "We have to make sure that we are interdicting the flow of guns and cash to the south. It's not enough just to interdict drugs flowing north. And so, we've actually initiated a whole range of measures to make sure that we're reducing that southbound flow."

Noting that Holder had launched the internal investigation into Fast and Furious, Obama told ABC "it is not acceptable for us to allow guns to go into Mexico... So it's very upsetting to me to think that somebody showed such bad judgment that they would allow something like that to happen and we will find out who and what happened in this situation and make sure it gets corrected."

We looked for other signs of Obama’s role in the operation, finding nothing to contradict his accounts.

In 2011, staff to the House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California, issued two Fast and Furious reports. The June 14, 2011, reportcovers Fast and Furious accounts of ATF agents. The July 26, 2011, report explores the impact of Fast and Furious on Mexico. The reports do not gauge Obama’s involvement.

A January 2012 report by House Democrats says the strategy of permitting illegal guns to flow to cartels in Mexico in hopes of building cases against vital figures originated with federal law officers in Arizona in 2006, which was when George W. Bush was president.

"Unfortunately, this strategy failed to include sufficient operational controls to stop these dangerous weapons from getting into the hands of violent criminals, creating a danger to public safety on both sides of the border," Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Maryland, told colleagues in a Jan. 30, 2012, letter summarizing the report. His letter says Fast and Furious was the fourth federal operation since 2006 in which gun-walking occurred.

Finally, we reached the office of Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who has been critical of Fast and Furious. Grassley spokeswoman Jill Gerber provided a partially redacted document that appears to be a Jan. 8, 2010, briefing paper on Fast and Furious originated by federal authorities based in Arizona. Its bullet point No. 13 opens: "Currently our strategy is to allow the transfer of firearms to continue to take place, albeit at a much slower pace, in order to further the investigation and allow for the identification of additional co-conspirators who would continue to operate and illegally traffic" firearms to Mexican drug trafficking organizations "perpetrating armed violence along the Southwest Border."

So, I was wrong, and apologize. There is apparently NO evidence that any of these guns killed any DEA agents.

[Norman Bernstein]

so... THAT means that the 300 Mexicans weren't killed with untrackable guns sold to them on Obama's watch

I'm currently looking for a valid and believable reference to the '300 Mexicans' claim. I imagine many MORe Mexicans have been killed over the years due to the drug wars down there, but the apparent claim is quite specific: that these 300 Mexicans were specifically killed by weapons supplied under the F&F operation.... still haven't found a reference to that.

As for this happening on 'Obama's Watch', yes, that's right.... under a program initiated by George Bush.

The real question is just how much accountability would you expect Obama to have for this? Want to blame him for stuff he wasn't aware of, happening many levels down the chain of command, on an issue way below Obama's logical horizon?

Or is this just another case of 'tag, you're it'?

[Phillip Allen]

this seems to skirt the issue... 'we' don't have evidence.. being specifically, Democrats, and therefore, since we don't acknowledge any evidence, it doesn't exist and Holder/Obama isn't withholding that evidence nuther... that is what Executive privilege is all about, isn't it

[Phillip Allen]

NOrman, will you stake your reputation on f&f being a continuation of Bush's program?

[Norman Bernstein]

this seems to skirt the issue...

Skirting the issue?

Here's what skirting the issue is:

Propagating a lie about a conversation between Obama and Sarah Brady.

Making claims about Obama's involvement with F&F without any basis or evidence.

Propagating a lie about proof that DEA agents were killed with F&F guns.

-----------

This is Ken Star and Whitewater all over again..... trumping up a faux scandal, trying to claim that is' so monumental as to be Obama's 'Watergate', calling Obama and Holder 'unrelentingly evil'.......

Pure political hate.

Hope you're enjoying it.

[Norman Bernstein]

NOrman, will you stake your reputation on f&f being a continuation of Bush's program?

Stop being so childish.

Try reading, for a change. F&F was part of an operation begun in 2006.... and the details are available in a Congressional report which is on line:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/document...ity-report.pdf

[Phillip Allen]

Stop being so childish.

Try reading, for a change. F&F was part of an operation begun in 2006.... and the details are available in a Congressional report which is on line:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/document...ity-report.pdf

wide reciever was terminated... you left that out and now you want to hang a subsequent and different program on any other administration but Obama's

the two programs resemble one another the same way a Rolls Royce resembles my pick up... same number of wheels, steering wheel, wind screen and engine in the front... yep, they're the same alright

[Norman Bernstein]

this report tells the story of how misguided gunwalking operations originated in 2006 as ATF’s Phoenix Field Division devised a strategy to forgo prosecutions against lowlevel straw purchasers while they attempted to build bigger charges against higher-level cartel members. Unfortunately, this strategy failed to include sufficient operational controls to stop these dangerous weapons from getting into the hands of violent criminals, creating a danger to public safety on both sides of the border.

The report describes how, rather than halting this operation after its flaws became evident, ATF’s Phoenix Field Division launched several similarly reckless operations over the course of several years, also with tragic results. Operation Fast and Furious was the fourth in a series of operations in which gunwalking—the non-interdiction of illegally purchased firearms that could and should be seized by law enforcement—occurred since 2006.

This report also details complaints by ATF line agents and senior officials in Washington, who told the Committee that these failures were aggravated and compounded by the Arizona U.S. Attorney’s Office, which failed to aggressively prosecute firearms trafficking cases, and Federal courts in Arizona, which showed leniency toward the trafficking networks that fuel armed violence in Mexico.


This report debunks many unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. Contrary to repeated claims by some, the Committee has obtained no evidence that Operation Fast and Furious was a politically-motivated operation conceived and directed by high-level Obama Administration political appointees at the Department of Justice. The documents obtained and interviews conducted by the Committee indicate that it was the latest in a series of reckless and fatally flawed operations run by ATF’s Phoenix Field Division during both the previous and current administrations.

The fault lies somewhere.... and the most credible evidence lays it on the Arizona ATF office.

The lame attempt to tag Obama with this is, of course, the actual political game.

Try reading the entire report.

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

awwww shucks

[wardd]

The news has a long history of interfering in wars... that's one example from my lifetime.

dam rite, wars should be the sole provence of the gov and conducted in secrecy

after the germans publicly announced the defeat at stalingrad the war started to go badly for them

[wardd]

so... THAT means that the 300 Mexicans weren't killed with untrackable guns sold to them on Obama's watch

dam rite, without faf they couldn't have gotten any guns

[Phillip Allen]

wardd, you say the most short sighted and unconsidered things... and none of the choir ever points it out to you

[Joe ( Cold Spring on Hudson )]

Awwwww Shucks

[Glen Longino]

wardd, you say the most short sighted and unconsidered things... and none of the choir ever points it out to you

"Why so grouchy lately? What's bothering you?"

[wardd]

wardd, you say the most short sighted and unconsidered things... and none of the choir ever points it out to you

because you sincerely believe them to be short sighted, liberal or both?

i sincerely think that most of what i read here from the right is short sighted

as a philosophy unless your wealthy adhering to the principles of the current republican party is defacto short sighted

[John Smith]

Sure. But then you'd have two other problems.
First - a definition of conservative (and Liberal while you're at it).
And secondly and more importantly, you'd have only demonstrated another sort of bias.

I don't mind honest advocacy of a particular viewpoint - I don't think most people mind that.
What I and obviously others mind very much is the pretense of objectivity where the situation is just the opposite.

Maybe I'll start getting some support for requing all these sources to report facts honestly and not take things out of context.

[wardd]

Maybe I'll start getting some support for requing all these sources to report facts honestly and not take things out of context.

have you read the bible?

it's all out of context

[John Smith]

have you read the bible?

it's all out of context

I've read the Bible, but I do not believe in it.

What I do believe is there's no point in having the right to know the truth if those providing us with information have no requirement to tell us the truth. Misrepresentation of matters of fact for gain is fraud.

[wardd]

I've read the Bible, but I do not believe in it.

What I do believe is there's no point in having the right to know the truth if those providing us with information have no requirement to tell us the truth. Misrepresentation of matters of fact for gain is fraud.

we don't have nearly enough right wing judges to try all those cases