I actually watched some teevee yesterday, a rarity for me, and I was happy to see some good interviewees with some non-pods: Michael Moore with David Brancaccio, and Dennis Kucinich with David Letterman. I didn't realize what a good sense of humor Kucinich had, and what a smile, especially in the photo of him and his wife. Since once of my heroes is/was the extrememly short Rod Serling, I think all the talk of Kucinich's height is total bumkum. Pod people, packdogs, whatever you call 'em, they suck.
Posted by Sharon at June 30, 2007 07:33 AMI admit that I was surprised as well. But there is a way in which it all makes perfect sense: set up men with vaulting ambition and modest skills not as fallable wise men but as minor Gods. Push them until they fail spectacularly,. and what do you have? Theater. Tragedy. The perfect foil to Paris Hilton stories.
It's unclear to me that the whole thing was planned like this from the beginning. But once the situation offered itself, no question they exploited it, as good capitalists should.
Posted by steve at June 30, 2007 08:19 AMAnd speaking of the Press, the Media and the dosing of "truth"----
See this:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/fairness-doctrine-hammered-309-115-2007-06-28.html
The last TV show I stopped watching was the News Hour, along with its twin Washington Week in Review, precisely because there was never any intimation of thought on the part of the reporters.
No, the on-the-one-hand, on-the-other format was fixed ineradicably into the show; it put crucial importance on who the guests are that you give time to; and they always were conservative spokespeople.
So, paradox, I suggest you follow my good example and stop hitting yourself over the head. Simply stop watching the repetitive insults to your intelligence -- or to anyone's intelligence.
News and commentary are available, without the upset stomach, elsewhere.
Posted by mmeo at June 30, 2007 10:11 AMThere was never any intimation of thought on the part of the reporters.
This is most obvious during pesidential election season.
Snarlin' Dick's authoritarian-corporatist-dictatorial ways were obvious in his political past for anyone who took the most cursory glance. As were the Chimp's incurious detachment and sleazy cronyism.
But all we got during their presidential run was People Magazine-style celebrity puff pieces projecting Rove's conjured images of Oily Dick's 'gravitas' and Chimpy's 'have a beer' affability. Don't rouse the sheep by actually examining their records, just recite the script of their campaign's puppet show.
The "pod people" have always played a significant role in the US press. It's been the number on the opposite side that has waxed and waned over the years. Not too many "good guys" during the McCarthy era or early Vietnam. Slept through five years of Nixon then got mean. Stayed mean until Reagan was elected. Slept and then got mean again in 1993. Back to sleep in 2001.
Posted by Marie at June 30, 2007 11:35 AMThe problem is that once a Democrat is elected to the Whitehouse, the hypnosis will wear off and they will become the watchdogs they are meant to be.
They build their reputations attacking Democrats and then coast (at best) during Republican administrations. Note that in all cases, they are doing what is best for Republicans.
Is it coincidental or inadvertent? I truly hope so, but when enough smokers get lung cancer, you gotta think cigarettes are part of the problem. You don't need causality or venality to recognize the problem or address it in some way.
Normally, in the marketplace, the solution would include directly contacting the money sources (advertisers) but how do you tell Macy's that you won't buy their products because Judy Miller (at the NYT) is acting as an Administration advocate? They won't likely believe it.
At a guess, I think that blogs have shown the path, but not the actual answer yet. Somehow, we need to construct a real 'shaming' mechanism for shoddy journalism. Perhaps encouraging print media to attack each other for quality issues using blogs for ammunition? I don't know, but I know that the actual cost of shitty reporting is practically zero, and if you (Fox) decide to do it as a matter of course and with a clear purpose, you can actually make more money that way.
Just a stream of conscience diatribe there (pun intended)
R
Posted by Dilapidus at June 30, 2007 11:52 AM"Is it coincidental or inadvertent?" Dilapidus it's hard to believe anyone could ask that question at this point in time....but here's the answer to your question - neither. The Media you refer to is wholly owned by Corporations agligned with the Republican Party/Neo-Conservative moguls. They know exactly what they are doing.
You are correct in predicting that once a Democrat lands in the White House...all kinds of investigative reporting will resurface. Unfortunately it too will be directed by these same Corporate forces, and will require no actual evidence at all for the accusations. The first time the GOP gains a majority in the House with a sitting Dem president, impeachment proceedings are guaranteed. They will not "worry about the way it looks" like the current Democratic leadership.
T2
I realize that this the system and the way it is supposed to work for the people who own the system, don't get me wrong. I suppose I was just cajoling the converted there. Still, with the exception of the Murdoch owned stuff, I don't believe in actual collusion, just the usual Chomsky defined, "They wouldn't be editors if the hadn't internalized the desires of thier masters.
It seems that we only have one weapon, and that is our wallets (votes make some, but not that much, difference). As I noted, it's not quite as simple as boycotting products advertised. However, there must be an answer. I promise you that the morals and political philosophies of the people who own the news organizations will be the first things out the window when the company starts bleeding money.
I wish I had an answer. I am sure there is one in there. Blogs and the internet in general will be a large part of the solution, if only for qualifying a new generation of pundits (Greenwald, Hamsher, etc are already getting prime time)
Posted by Dilapidus at June 30, 2007 09:55 PMThe US media must act the part of aggressor to Republican administrations occasionally. As Goebbels said, in order for propoganda to be effective you must have the illusion of discourse.
However, in this particular case one must understand that even amongst those most loyal Republicans there is a secret desire to see Karl Rove fall -- hard. (Cheney too, but the hatred is not as deeply felt.)
Posted by Non-conservative at July 2, 2007 07:01 AM