Results tagged “journalism” from Eccentric Eclectica

I remember wistfully back in the 1980s listening to neoconservatives, like Jeane Kirkpatrick, argue that any comparisons between the bad things that America did oversees and bad things done by the Soviet Union were the height of irresponsibility. Liberals, like Noam Chomsky, were creating a “false equivalence” between the always-working-for-good America and the devil-incarnate-evil-empire Soviet Union. The whole messed-up thread was most salient during the year I was on the high school debate team and the resolution was about American foreign-policy in Latin America. Any argument that the United States supported terrorists or the overthrow of governments almost always got the Kirkpatrick “false equivalency” argument as a response.

I’ve been watching the current town-hall protests by Republicans and other far-right organizations over the past week in astonishment. But the most frustrating thing is the media narrative, present at MPR and the NYT, that the protests at the town-halls are just more of the same protests that liberals launched during the Bush administration. So here are my reasons why this equivalency is actually false:

1. Corporate backing. I don’t recall any corporations backing the anti-war protests during the Bush administration. Former health care executives are running anti-reform campaigns. Two of the major groups involved in organizing the protests are Conservatives for Patients Rights, a group founded by Rick Scott, an ex-hospital executive, and Freedom Works, chaired by the Republican ex-majority leader of the house, Dick Armey.

2. Republican party-leaders have adopted the outrageous rhetoric of the far-right. During the Bush administration liberals couldn’t get any of their party leaders to lend any support to their outrage. Howard Dean argued against the war but even he was forced to back down from some statements, such as his December 2003 statement about the capture of Saddam Hussein. The Democrat party ignored the anti-war left as much as possible. Just remember the utter failure of the impeach Bush meme. Democrats routinely reject the left, Republicans bend over backwards to embrace the fascist right.

3. The current protests at town-halls are designed to stifle debate instead of encourage it. The great frustration of the left during the run-up to the Iraq war was the rejection of debate by the powers that be. Congress and other groups didn’t want to hear any objection to the war. Today Congress wants debate, that’s why they hold the town-halls to hear from their constituents, but the people right-wingers who show up are shutting down the debate before it even starts.

4. There is also a big difference between media coverage of the current protests and the media coverage of anti-Bush protests. Today the town-hall protesters have major media figures like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Jonah Goldberg, Charles Krauthammer, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and more supporting their cause. I don’t remember there being as many prominent media figures supporting the anti-war protesters. I can only name two: Paul Krugman, and Bill Moyers. There were more but they didn’t have a whole network to promote their views like Fox News does today.

I noticed a couple of reports over the last two weeks about the Morgan Stanley report by a 15-year-old intern about social media use among teenagers. I clicked through to the news article, read it quickly, and then just as quickly dismissed it.

Last week I read a post by Kent Anderson at The Scholarly Kitchen on the same story. Anderson contends that the incident is an example of a gate-keeping failure at Morgan Stanley.

For instance, they published the report “[w]ithout claiming representation or statistical accuracy,” yet felt it provided “one of the clearest and most thought provoking insights we have seen.”

How can it be non-representative and inaccurate, yet clear and thought-provoking?

Kent linked to a U.K. newspaper story at the Times Online that reveals how Matthew Robson got the job at Morgan Stanley.

Gaining a place at Morgan Stanley to explain teenage media consumption to the world required a little luck. It was not just what Matthew knew, but whom he knew, or rather, whom his dog, Rudolph, knew.

In January Rudolph, a three-year-old whippet, was being walked by Matthew’s mother in Greenwich Park when he became friendly with the dog of Patrick Wellington, a senior financial analyst at Morgan Stanley. His mother and Mr Wellington began chatting about her son’s struggles to get a work experience placement.

“We had tried many places, mainly in the local area,” said his mother. Matthew had written to local businesses, solicitors and banks including Lloyds TSB and all had turned him down.

So he wrote to Morgan Stanley, which offered him a two-week internship and two weeks ago on Monday he set off for the bank’s offices in Canary Wharf.

I don’t begrudge Matthew his chance to work at Morgan Stanley but the background on how he got the job makes me even less likely to credit anything he, or by extension Morgan Stanley, say about how the internet or social media really work. The whole story begins to smell link link-baiting or trolling from the start.

The problem is that it is these types of media hype stories that force me to reconsider all media stories. I can think of three possible explanations for the this story at Morgan Stanley

1. The analysts at Morgan Stanley were truly surprised by the things Robson said and wanted to publish them. From this I conclude that the analysts don’t know much about their subject if they are so easily amazed.
2. The folks and Morgan Stanley just wanted to give some props to a plucky teenager who displayed a bit of talent and drive. This is probably the most flattering interpretation of MS behavior, because then the media frenzy is not their fault.
3. Or the Morgan Stanley people deliberately promoted the story because they knew it had all the media hooks that would get it wide publicity: a young teenager telling his confused elders where to stick their vaunted expertise.

Morgan Stanley comes off looking poorly under all of these scenarios.

The media problem may be even more serious. The media moves so quickly from Michael Jackson to Walter Cronkite, and controls so much of our mental space for respect and reputation, so that the only lesson to be learned is to make a big splash with some confidently asserted thoughts and hope that the fame machine picks you up for a day or two.

It’s a crazy world and it just seems to grind talent up faster and faster.

What I’d like to see in a half hour media news program, or even ten minute news program.

First, if the story is being reported on by any other major news outlet than we ignore it, for the most part. Fighting in Israel, earthquake in China, cyclone in Myanmar, are all stories we leave to others.

Second, focus on summarizing the international news for an American audience. What happened in Europe, Asia, Africa, South America today, each and every day. What are the big stories in India, Brazil, Argentina, Thailand, Philippines, Australia, etc.

Third, forget about scoops. Do the best with the resources we can get to. Rely on local coverage as much as possible to understand the situation.

Fourth, avoid the talking head roundtable. The News Hour is great but little television children die every time they cut away to another talking head roundtable of experts to explain what just happened.

Fifth, regular and consistent focus on science.

Sixth, no celebrity news. None, zip. Never.

I listened to your story about rising gas prices this afternoon and was disappointed by your coverage. It was filled with cliches and lack of creativity.

I have heard man-at-the-pump interviews for the past 6 months. It is time for journalists to come up with a new way of covering this story. Could you not interview an economist or some other expert? Hell, I’d even listen to a public relations person from an oil company if I could be guaranteed that I would not have to hear another man-at-the-pump interview.

This is lazy reporting. It fails to explain the issue it reports on, fails to give the public any additional information, and fails to delve into the very real economic issues that face America. To continue from this story to a report on the week in politics is the laziest form of reporting.

What I need to hear about is why gas prices are so high? Why has it taken so long for auto makers to produce efficient cars? Why has the government failed to invest in alternative energy, especially in comparison to the billions spent on war? So many question could be asked, but instead your correspondent and editors chose the easy way out.

I know journalism is hard. Time is short and deadlines are looming. But please take some time to plan out an investigation of the deeper issues that are causing Americans pain. Don’t tell us about the rise in gas prices every day or every week. Take a month to do a real in-depth story and then broadcast that story over days or weeks. And repeat the in-depth reporting if you have to. Just don’t be lazy.