I would have never expected such a succinct explanation on Palin and the McCain campaign coming from someone who’s so utterly, completely missed the boat in the past (on things like the Iraq war, etc.).
Klein’s point, and it’s a good one, is this:
There is a tendency in the media to kick ourselves, cringe and withdraw, when we are criticized. But I hope my colleagues stand strong in this case: it is important for the public to know that Palin raised taxes as governor, supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it, pursued pork-barrel projects as mayor, tried to ban books at the local library and thinks the war in Iraq is “a task from God.” The attempts by the McCain campaign to bully us into not reporting such things are not only stupidly aggressive, but unprofessional in the extreme.
Keep in mind, Joe Klein is exactly the type of guy who would have gone all gaga over McCane not long ago. I’m guessing he completely relates with his described media “tendency.” He must feel utterly hoodwinked – and, thankfully, learned a thing or two since then.
There’s much more at his blog – go read it – but I do want to quote one more thing. This is utterly bizarre. And, quite frankly, scary.
Yesterday, McCain refused to an interview with Larry King, for God’s sake, because Campbell Brown had been caught in the commission of journalism on CNN the night before, asking McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds what decisions Sarah Palin had made as commander-in-chief of the Alaska national guard.
Here’s hoping Klein’s blog is a reflection of the media finally losing its long-standing love for “Maverick” McCain. I don’t know how it could become anymore clear that McCain is not a maverick and the reasons why the media loved him in 2000 no longer exist, if they ever really did to begin with. The media should continue to be tough on Palin, who’s still barely known, and make sure the American people are prepared to make a decision come November.
i.e. the harry reid comment regarding Palin appearing “shrill”.
sad, really, because CNN does have more of a ‘newsy’ appearance and feel. Their only problem is the fact that all of CNN’s hosts are completely dweebs – from Anderson to Wolf. Can’t stand any of them… and they’ll all fall for whatever spin the Republicans throw at them.
<
p>It’s really a network that’s still dominated by fear of appearing ‘liberal,’ even the world-wide sense of the word – in terms of opening minds. So what we get is watered down news where hosts rarely stand up to those they interview in demanding answers. Campbell Brown, who challenged the McCain camp on Palin issues, probably deserves a promotion… but I’m rather more inclined to believe she’ll be punished for appearing biased, when she was really practicing journalism in the hard, old-fashioned and good sense.
<
p>Still, though, with MSNBC literally becoming less a news network than it is a liberal commentary network (nothing wrong with that, either), cable could use a serious news network. CNN should try to remodel itself after Newshour or the BBC and leave the commentary behind. But they have to do the news well, which is something they mostly fail at now.
The Tucker Bounds interview was fantastic!
<
p>http://talkingpointsmemo.com/a…
He certainly didn’t there. Talk about making something more complicated than they need to be!
The problem is that the MSM has given up all pretense that they are objective—which I guess is a good thing. Newspapers and magazines are driving themselves into failure. I think newpapers are great and have been reading three a day for many years. But because of their declining objectivity, I now only one paper a day. As a matter of fact, I now avoid editorialists that have an axe to grind.
The worse part—if you only read news that agrees with your opinion then you get to the point where you” cannot see the forest for the trees”. Which I hope I don’t fall into that trap.
<
p>If many folks here believe all of the nonsense that they read about one candidate or another, you will always be disappointed.
<
p>
Is to just switch back and forth between Fox and MSNBC. I figure the truth is somewhere in the middle.
<
p>Kind of like reading the DailyKos and Drudge Report.
parallel universes.
just stick with Rachel Maddow. it reminds me of the old cheerleader saying, “If she can’t do it, no one can.”
i made my comment above. Fox News is more propoganda than commentary – and I’ll readily admit that, for the most part, MSNBC has simply become commentary. That’s why I wish CNN would sure up its news bonafides and become hard hitting journalists, 20 hours a day (I’ll give them the Larry King and Lou Dobbs timeslots, though bugrudgingly Dobbs… since I find him only somewhat more tolerable than freaking Bill O).
<
p>And the newspapers… hunting news print will yield more hard news, but I have much higher expectations in print for nuance and facts. I just get disappointed a lot.
What bothers me most is the deterioration of MSNBC.
<
p>I remember watching Hardball just four years ago (live from Fanuiel Hall) when it was more of an objective discussion of the news with a little bit of old-fashioned reporting thrown in occasionally.
<
p>This year, it’s unwatchable. I try to switch over to hear what Brokaw has to say but just can’t stand listening to Matthews and Oberman blab so incoherently. They’ve been unbelievably biased, nonsensical and meaninglessly “devils advocates” during both conventions. And I’m more liberal than them, so it’s not the policies or positions (for me) but their tone and lack of substance.
<
p>Last night, Brian Williams even read the Klein blog on the air as his immediate “analysis” of the Palin speech. I’d almost rather hear what Kristol has to say!
<
p>RIP, Tim Russert. We miss you.
<
p>
I don’t mind that MSNBC’s become a commentary station. Olbermann’s the best thing that’s ever happened to MSNBC. Matthews has always had his moments, but on the whole he’s never really been that good – too much about political gamesmanship, not enough about the actual stuff that matters (policy, news, integrity, etc.).
<
p>I just wish CNN would take advantage and push their brand as a true news channel. They’re in a position to market themselves as the only real one in the business. I’d watch CNN a lot if they didn’t put such smarmy people as Wolf and Anderson on TV… and the soft news of Anderson. Ugh.
… when they demonstrated their ‘commitment’ to objectivity by giving Glen Beck a place to flack. I pretty much hit their site maybe twice a day at least and watched maybe 30 minutes of programming a day or so. Now nothing. I occasionally email them to remind them.
even 5 minutes of cnn headline news, more than immediately flipping by. That said, I’ve seen enough of Glenn Beck to think he’s an even bigger turd than Bill O.
They have had a few objective moments during the RNC, but that doesn’t make up for 7 years of carrying water for the Republicans.
The interesting thing is which side they happen to be presenting the news from. If they decide McCain’s candidacy is kaput, which the above post suggests might be happening, that will be an interesting point.
<
p>This in no way inconsistent with objecting to elements of their coverage.
if the republicans want to run a campaign on how the new york times reports a story, let them!!
<
p>meanwhile, let barack obama run a campaign on the issues that typical american families are actually fretting about at their kitchen tables.
<
p>we’ve got a staggering economy, a quagmire in iraq, a taliban resurgence in pakistan, we’re dead in the water on alternative energy development, and tens of millions of americans aren’t sure whether they can send their kids to college or whether they will have healthcare next year.
<
p>and mccain-palin want to rally the american spirit to address . . . keith olbermann?
<
p>we refer to this to as, “out of touch”.
<
p>
but how about the US Magazine cover. “Babies, Lies, and Scandal”. Too much.
I guess my post was as misleading as the cover is. I just think of all those shoppers who only see the cover. I think that’s what the editors were thinking.
…Megan Kelly’s interview with the editor yesterday, you would know that was the intention.
<
p>Personally, I love it.
These mutts, and their supporters, are now fully exposed for all America to see just how low, and loathsome, they can be.
to whom are you referring?
…that refers to a person regarded as STUPID – a muttenhead.
<
p>And it should be obvious to the literate that I refer to the mutts at US magazine.