There is no arguing with the pretenders to a divine knowledge and to a divine mission. They are possessed with the sin of pride, they have yielded to the perennial temptation.
–Walter Lippman
Mainstream journalism is in crisis. The old revenue model of selling advertising in printed papers doesn’t work well in the digital age. Television and internet news sources have sped up the news cycle to the point that the morning paper is 24 hours too late. The demand for scoops is greater. With this increased competition is a loss of a near monopoly on information.
Once upon a time, a lot of information just didn’t exist. If it wasn’t in the newspapers, it wasn’t known by the broader public. Journalist Walter Lippmann made this argument in the first chapter of Public Opinion (1922). Until the advent of cable news and the 24-hour news cycle, newspapers decided what qualified as news. Since the advent of the internet as a news medium, newspapers are often playing catch up. And catching up isn’t easy.
Just ask the New York Times. Trying really, really hard to find a scandal in Hillary Clinton’s emails from when she was Secretary of State, the Times ended up screwing the pooch. Media Matters has the best run down of events, but Poynter has also picked it up. Yesterday, the Clinton Campaign released its formal complaint to the Times executive editor. Here’s Media Matters:
The New York Times uncorked perhaps the biggest newsroom blunder of the 2016 campaign season, when Michael Schmidt and Matt Apuzzo erroneously reported that two inspectors general were seeking a criminal probe of Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email account while serving as secretary of state. The Times’ would-be blockbuster landed online on July 23 and on the front page of the print edition July 24.
But even before many readers picked up the paper on Friday morning, the story had begun to unravel. By Friday afternoon, the Times’ exclusive had suddenly morphed into a humiliation for the Times itself. The paper was widely ridiculed for getting the referral story wrong, and then for awkwardly trying to limit the damage via stealthy online edits.
Almost four days after its initial publication, Times public editor Margaret Sullivan weighed in on the “mess” this morning, suggesting that the paper should have waited to publish until it had developed the story more extensively: “Losing the story to another news outlet would have been a far, far better outcome than publishing an unfair story and damaging The Times’s reputation for accuracy.”
Meanwhile, executive editor Dean Baquet pinned much of the blame for the debacle on the Times’ sources — rather than the reporters and editors involved — suggesting that this might not be the last mistake of this nature we see from the paper: “You had the government confirming that it was a criminal referral … I’m not sure what they could have done differently on that.”
As journalistic screwup’s go, this is major. The most respected newspaper in the world falsely reports the beginnings of a criminal investigation into a presidential candidate. Why?
The dynamics of the media crisis are playing out in the Clinton Campaign. The New York Times hasn’t kept up with the times. It’s no longer the 90s. No on cares what Cokie Roberts thinks. Conservative propaganda is a limited source for news stories. The people running the Times and Post–as intelligent as they may be–came of age during the years of Bill Clinton’s presidency, and they’re are trying to turn the past into the present. I don’t think it’s going to fly. Remember earlier this year when the press was all upset because Clinton would answer their questions? The Washington Post does. Ol’ Tiger Beat on the Potomac created a clock to count the minutes Clinton hasn’t responded to questions from the media. The count is now up to 61,367 minutes. That’s 42 days for you non-cardstackers. Their nose may be out of joint, but besides the mainstream press, who cares? They can’t even get their stories straight.
It seems to me that getting something right and providing context should be at least as valuable as getting it first. IMO it’s OK if the morning paper is “24 hours too late” if that means diving into the weeds to sort out the facts and providing more context, but the market overall needs to accept that for the model to work.
not adjusting to the new reality. In the news market, there’s just too many outlets for news.
In the very old days, something that got reported stayed reported. Occasionally, there would be a retraction on page 16. But there was no media–except on the fringes–that could challenge them. Now, I can challenge them, you can challenge them, there’s an entire universe of social media to challenge them. Getting away with White Water non-stories is a lot harder today because the mainstream media no longer has a monopoly. Add this lack of hegemony to trying to repeat the past, and the Times was right for a screw up.
…isn’t that even MORE incentive to get it right the first time, even if it means a bit of a delay?
If anybody thinks what the Times did is because of the 24/7/365 speed-up of the news cycle because of “the Internet” they are probably sadly mistaken. You can quote that old elitist Walter Lippmann as much as you want to but please consult his contemporaries, two men Lippmann probably despised, who were real, working journalists on the practices of journalism then and now: George Seldes and Upton Sinclair. Seldes’ autobiography (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/11/20/663606/-Witness-to-a-Century-George-Seldes) will teach you much of what you need to know about the news actually works and Sinclair’s The Brass Check (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/16/271728/-The-Jungle-of-Journalism-Upton-Sinclair-on-the-Press) will show you how that actuality works for both a reporter and the subject of reporting.
Not much has changed since then.
The NYTimes is still playing by the 1990s Clinton rules and it’s not the only one. Take a look at the reported reporting practices of Halperin and Heilemann of Bloomberg News in their recent Trump focus group: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/bloomberg-politics-trump-supporter-dispute
Journalists look for stories. They’ll make them up if they have to because they HAVE to. If there isn’t a coherent story, their training makes them see one anyway, one which plays into their prejudices and POV. We are pattern-seeking creatures and see patterns even when they aren’t there. If those false patterns are rewarded, then we get even more of them, whatever the reality actually is.
The 24/7 news cycle requires increased production and product turnover. It’s a factor in, but not the cause of, of the press’s problems today.
A lot has changed, however, since the 1920s. The media still has a large role in agenda-setting, but it has a much harder time maintaining control of the agenda. In the 1980s and 1990s, conservative messaging dominated because they used newsletters and talk radio, which could amplify their voices at the very least among the base. With the beginning of the 21st century, we have the blogosphere and electronic news sites. These have allowed the Left to amplify its voice.
Once upon a time, it was up to the agenda-setters to report and challenge Trump’s bizarre propaganda. There wasn’t a timely, accessible, non-mainstream media platform to do so. The agenda-setters decided whether to do the story or not. They could ignore JFK’s philandering or FDR’s polio. Now it’s harder. Readers have exponentially more information at their fingertips than they did 20 years ago. We can each be a fact-checker. The fact is, it’s much, much harder for journalists to be rewarded for crap today. They may get paid, but they also are proven wrong and criticized.
I don’t believe the MSM is getting away with its Hillary narrative. She knows just how relevant and popular they are. At some point, a Clinton surrogate could start a narrative about the unfairness of the press over the last 25 years. She can turn the press’s treatment of her into an asset, a demonstration of her toughness and strength in adversity.
When Nixon got busted, the entire country eventually grew tired of the charade and wanted him gone-including most Republicans posed and a decent number of Republican members of Congress, from liberals like our own Ed Brooke to conservatives like Barry Goldwater. Now of course, there are no more liberal Republicans, Goldwater would be too liberal to stay in the GOP, and I suspect a Republican accused of high crimes and misdemeanors would be given the benefit of the doubt by his or her base. Just as much as a Democrat’s would be by his or her base.
Much of this coverage will be ignored by liberals and progressives, in this case as with Benghazi, rightly so, in other more directly troubling cases, not so much. You won’t see MSNBC go after the latter, you will see Fox News make mountains out of the molehills that are the former.
Similarly, Jeb!’s cushy education contracts are getting scrutinized by left leaning outlets while Fox News doesn’t say a peep. It’s unbecoming of Trump to insult all veterans by questioning McCain’s service record, but fair game when they all did it to Kerry.
At the end of the day Hillary will have a built in ceiling of 55%, Democratic leaners plus all the independents scared off by the GOP, basically what Obama got in 2008 and 2012. There are scarcely any voters willing to vote for him that can’t vote for her or vice a versa.
This is exactly why the Sanders challenge is essential, keeping the Clinton’s honest and forcing them to campaign for the priorities of the base, and it’s a good thing he isn’t going after her on this nonsense. Largely because he would be viewed, fairly or not, as making partisan Republican talking points. And the more they attack her, the more it fits into her narrative and helps her as far as I see.
yet, but as much as I agree with Bernie Sanders, I don’t see him a viable nominee. I agree with you, however, he’s helping to pull the party left and that helps Hillary become more liberal. I also think she’s too smart not to realize how politics have and are changing in our direction.
Went to supper at my parents. My dad was watching the NBC Evening News and Lester Holt was trying to find some important in the amount of money the Clintons have made over the years. It was a response to the release of 8 years of tax records, but, um, Mitt Romney? Jeb!? IOKIYAR
There is no downside to voting for Bernie in my mind. To be clear, if you sincerely support Hillary Clinton as your first choice, as my fiancee, Christopher, Fred, Terry, Joel Patterson and many fine progressives here and elsewhere already do, then go for it. I see no reason not to vote your first choice in a Democratic primary, that is almost always my rule. At this point, Bernie is outpolling all the Republicans except for Jeb!, who at this point has a much lower chance of getting nominated by his party than either Hillary or Bernie have in ours.
I strongly feel that people these days vote the party, not the person. I would bet that the next Democratic nominee will get between 51-53% of the vote, the ceiling being the 2008 campaign and the floor being the 2012 campaign. And those numbers will go to Bernie or Hillary, so better to vote for the person you like and let the Republicans worry about electability-it’s their problem now not ours.
The darkhorse cometh…
average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people.” ADMIRAL HYMAN RICKOVER (“father” of America’s nuclear navy)
Hillary Clinton outlined her vision of racial equality
before the Urban League today where she was the only candidate to receive a standing ovation. Later she gave a foreign policy speech calling for Congress to end the embargo on Cuba. ISSUES!
As a devoted supporter of Secretary Clinton, I was appalled at the false, slanderous reporting by the NYT.
Outrageous. They should be ashamed of themselves As a longtime admirer of Walter Lippman, I was reminded of Woodward’s definition of good reporting as the ‘most effective way to find the truth’.
How does an honest candidate for President get back her reputation after it has been dragged through the mud by lazy, arrogant, spineless shills who have the audacity to call themselves journalists ?
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Founder, P.O.W.A.R.
One of her best, even better than Bernie’s remarks and he is my primary choice. If speeches like that and ads like the one Charley linked to are the norm, I am far more confident that this campaign will be more responsive to the grassroots than the last. Robby Mook is no Mark Penn-he is seeped in progressive grassroots politics and got his start working with Dean in 2004. A buddy I met on the Obama campaign met him while canvassing for MacAuliffe in Virginia and says he’s a great guy who can fire up canvassers.
Whether caused by the new news cycle or not, the media seems to have lost entirely its traditional mission of holding the powerful accountable to the truth.
Instead, we routinely see the media bullied – frankly by both sides – into ashamedly retreating on the few occasions a journalist attempts to challenge the factual basis for a politician’s statement.
My pet example would be Charlie Rose’s interview with Lee Kwan Yew several years ago. The authoritarian leader of Singapore, who routinely jailed political opponents, was treated to a kids-glove interview focused almost exclusively on what The Dictator wanted the interview to focus on – economics, once a few obligatory questions were dispensed with.
Although this was an interview with a foreign leader, the interviews that we see of our political leaders are typically no different.
Why is this so? I don’t think there’s any question that there’s a simple answer to this: money. Are you going to get the next interview? Are you going to have access in the future? If you don’t have access in the future will you lose advertisers? Ultimately it is we consumers of information that must demand more of journalism.
I fear you blame the victim. I don’t think journalists on the street are much different today than they’ve been in the past.
I think the difference is that, by intentional and careful design, the 1% (or 0.01%) who own the government have ensured that regulations restricting or eliminating market monopolies have been dismantled. The “fairness doctrine” is long gone. The result is that this same cabal also owns the media.
While the political agenda of Fox News is obvious and transparent, the influence of the cabal extends across the economy. As just one example, the NBCUniversal is the parent company of all NBC affiliates (many of whom also own or have close ties to print outlets in the same market). NBCUniversal is, in turn, wholly owned (after buying out the interest formerly held by GE) by Comcast Corporation.
Comcast is the largest broadcasting and cable company in the world. From the above wikipedia link (emphasis mine):
According to Forbes Magazine, the current net worth of Mr. Roberts is $1.49 Billion.
Also from the Wikipedia link (emphasis mine):
This non-partisan (the Democrats are owned just as much as the GOP) concentration of ownership and wealth means that a nod or raised eyebrow from Mr. Roberts or Mr. Cohen can turn advertising revenue on or off, cause local executives to be promoted or demoted, and cause local and federal government officials to be rewarded or punished.
In my view, it is futile for “we consumers of information” to demand anything so long as we allow this obscene concentration of wealth and power to remain in place.
In the meantime, I suggest we spend rather less time insulting the honesty of journalists and rather more time disarming the forces that block them from publishing (or even investigating) “the truth”.
I pretty much agree with you. But whether it’s the media rank and file or the executives, we need more quality (read: principled truth-seeking) from the Fourth Estate, and less clubbiness.
..what’s Charlie Rose’s excuse for his fawning over Lee? Pressure from PBS executives? I don’t think so. He swooned. Everyone yawned.
I’ll admit that there is an arguably legitimate philosophy in the U.S. media that rather than being confrontational, let the two sides duke it out in public (and in an interview – let the subject hang herself). But this is too convenient an excuse. At its best our domestic journalism has admitted that it has a point of view and confronted its subjects rather than feigning equivalence. (Murrow, Lippman, Stone etc.)
Furthermore, people like Matt Taibbi prove that the structural problems of media ownership do not absolve “street journalists” from all responsibility or from being creative and pushing their editors with good quality work that is difficult to turn down.
There is, in the MSM, a journalistic class with its own ideology (false equivalence between parties, acting like grown ups, very serious people). Some pundits make a living explaining how the 1% would have us look at things (David Brooks and Thomas Friedman). What’s amazing is how often reporters will assume the these narratives.
Part of the problem, I think, is that in most cases, reporters are generalists, inexpert in what they report on. Education is a text book example. Education is extremely complicated, and few reporters–even so-called education reporters–know what they know and don’t know. Libby Nelson at Vox reached the point where she knew what she knew and didn’t know. I even emailed her to tell her that.
Actually, while we consumers should demand more of journalism, journalists should also aspire to more than mere access, regurgitation, and false equilalencies: they should honestly seek the truth.