Let’s look at the past two shows. Getting back on the subject of HRC’s forum, it’s a grand case of discussing an interesting – and important – subject (do we have too many debates? Is that good for America?), without providing any of the important facts. For example, they didn’t discuss the format of either the last two televised debates – HRC or the AFL-CIO. Instead, they focused on horse-race type issues, such as the fact that the AFL-CIO debate had the “lowest” ratings ever. Then, they want on to criticize that no one was covering those debates. Instead of focusing on why no one was covering – you know, the systemic problems – Rooney just focused on these forums as being bad. If she focused on the “why,” she’d have actually had to – you know – criticize the media: it’s telling that the only organization that seriously looked at the AFL-CIO debate was MSNBC – the network that covered it. It goes to show that these organizations are only going to focus on their very own programing, so in true blame-the-victims fashion, Rooney went on to attack the very people who are giving their time to citizens instead of lobbyists.
What was more offensive was that the panel attacked the candidates for their 30-second snippets at debates, which doesn’t really serve the interest of voters as they favor those who talk the loudest and lie the most, but failed to mention the fact that the HRC debate wasn’t set up like that at all. You’d think the panelists would find it important to mention what was different about the HRC forum – and question whether or not it advanced or hindered citizes’ ability to get at the truth – but instead, Rooney (and others) admitted to not even WATCHING the forum they were so willing to criticize.
While the show before that really investigated the media – it was on whether or not local TV stations should pool their resources, especially expensive helocopters – was it really relevant? Sure, media-savvy people may be interested in how helicopters are used by tv stations, but the fact remains that whether or not tv stations have their own helicopters or share them won’t really affect the news that’s portrayed. It wouldn’t be a bad subject to focus on, of course, if the show were doing other segments on subjects far more worthy – but I’ve yet to see them really take on any important local stories, discussing the merit of those stories. Think if this kind of a panel of local experts focused on the shoddy Iraq war reporting leading up to the war in Iraq – as Bill Moyer did in his brilliant PBS documentary Buying the War. Perhaps, this panel could have discredited Judy Miller’s NYT stories – especially with Boston’s close connection to that paper (through the Globe’s connection). They could have been a loud voice, but I’ve yet to see a Rooney panel really challenge a story’s nuts and bolts in a way that would call a reporter into question. Simply put, Rooney and the panel come from a media background and seem unwilling to truly criticize their peers’ journalistic integrity.
Since ombudsmen are seemingly a thing of the past, it’s important that we have experts debunking bad journalism somewhere. There is no where more suitable than public television and a show like Beat the Press. However, it appears as if such a show needs to include someone on the outside of the media bubble. Rooney, week after week, is an utter failure as a host in her show’s quest to peek in on the inner workings of the media and to truly criticize the way they report. Even if journalists are a fickle people, it’s important to challenge them because even the good ones are going to make mistakes. The bad ones, like Judy Miller, can help bring a nation to war. My recent blog on Emily Rooney at Ryan’s Take was highly critical and maybe even offensive, but what she is doing on Beat the Press is even more offensive: she’s using a public trust, our local PBS channel, without respecting that very trust we give her with our expectation to hear a detailed, well researched and introspective truth about our media problems every Friday. Shame on her.
You pegged it. There’s often a real boosterism and a club spirit, particularly in New England.
<
p>
The big media here, the Globe as well as broadcast, have huge gaps and delays in coverage. We could use a watchdog that does what Rooney pretends to do.
<
p>
She for one doesn’t ask the hard questions or dig down into the important concept. Lord knows, it’s not because we are too polite in New England. I put it down to the clique mentality.
Rooney’s taped intro to the panel discussion did mention the different (and quite good, IMHO) format of the LOGO/HRC debate. But that fact should have come up again in the panel discussion. Also interesting was the fact that no one else on the panel seemed as bored by the number of debates as Rooney did — and our pals Adam Reilly and Dan Kennedy thought it was a good idea (go media bloggers!). I agree with Ryan on the unseemliness of Rooney’s over-emphasis on having someone from a “major mainstream media outlet” co-sponsor these debates, as though that somehow guaranteed the event’s credibility — though she did make a fair point in noting that it tends to be only the media sponsors that actually cover the debates in any detail. That, of course, is the fault of the non-sponsoring media outlets, not the candidates or anyone else.
<
p>
I have a hard time seeing any problem with presenting more opportunities for the people to see the candidates talking about important issues, however canned the responses may seem by now to the junkies who watch every forum.
The promo had that intro, thanks for that mention David. On Demand tends to cut into the first few seconds of a program, so I don’t think it was on the On Demand version. I’ll check it again… but needless to say, they didn’t talk about the format during the discussion – which was exceptionally relevant and would go against a lot of what they were saying.
…and it DID seem like she was out to pick a fight, and was nonplussed that Dan and Adam disn’t seem to go along.
<
p>
Dan was especially good at standing up for myriad debates.
<
p>
I don’t get why the HRC debate got panned, but the far more narrowly focused ALF-CIO debate did not (I mean really – I’m your GIRL?)
<
p>
BTW – looks like the GOP YouTube is back on – I wish the HRC would press on the GOP debate, since it seems that a refusal/ignoring CAN be turned around.
just how stale her thinking is.
<
p>
She sets the agenda for 30 minutes on a broadcast channel. Just as Ellen Goodman decided to complain that women don’t set the agenda in Left Blogistan instead of using her column to introduce readers to female bloggers, Rooney wanted to harp about “too many debates.”
<
p>
Rooney has every opportunity to go beyond candidates’ sound bites and do things like examine the differences between Clinton’s, Edwards’ and Obama’s healthcare plans and put it on TV, maybe even adding a swipe at the media outlets which don’t put important details out there. PBS shows are supposed to be more thoughtful than commercial networks (NOW and Bill Moyers fit in that category), but Rooney doesn’t put much effort into her work.
<
p>
She’s in charge of that show, and she can do a lot better.
and it’s time for them to work to make it BETTER instead of repeating cliched complaints.
…I obviously did not see the show (they don’t transport it here to Germany), and with apologies to Dan Kennedy, who often posts here, I long ago concluded that Rooney was a buffoon. Beat The Press is the only segment of her show that we watch, and not because of her.