Posts Tagged ‘journalism’
Russert’s Passing – Will It mean Dropping Any Pretense Of Objectivity?

Was Tim Russert the last of his breed?

I continue to be shocked by Tim Russert's ongoing death, and I didn't even like him either personally or as a journalist. As the latter, he was merely an intermittently objective liberal. As the former, I was dismayed that he didn't speak out when Don Imus was the victim of vile accusations because of a tasteless but insignificant remark. Of course, I don't know what transpired behind the scenes, but Russert and Imus had been friends, and I felt he was one person, perhaps the only one, who could have tempered the rabid herd.

Now that Mr. Russert is gone, most likely forever, I feel compelled to focus on the consequences of his passing, because based on the direction NBC has been going, it seems to me that Tim Russert was the lone remaining impediment. He was the most tactfully biased mainstream media man I knew. He could finesse a liberal perspective better than anyone to the point where his questions sounded absolutely reasonable until you realized that none of them ever came close to being posed from a conservative perspective.

That's what made Russert as great as he was though – he was Baby Bear's porridge, neither too hot or too cold. Conservatives and Republicans could sit down with him and have a reasonable chance of making a point. Can you think of anyone else at NBC, ABC, or CBS, forget about CNN and MSNBC, who could conduct an interview without any blatant bias and where reasonable argument gets a fair hearing? Or even a fair reception?

And now, it's not even whether Russert may have been one of a kind, it's about who would be willing, much less able, to find a replacement even close to Russert's caliber? Chris Wallace is similar in his approach, and he conceals his liberalism well enough, but he'd be miserably weak if past performance is an indication of future results. And from my admittedly limited perspective, there's no one else besides Wallace who can assume the mantle of liberally slanted impartiality.

Admit it, you wouldn't be surprised one bit if another Chris – Matthews were to become the new head of Meet The Press. And you wouldn't be even too surprised if the position were offered to Keith Olberman. It wouldn't be the first time that a smaller company took over a bigger one, but it would be the first time that, by implication, NBC management had tacitly, finally, declared that standards were now completely out the window – who needs standards anyway when you have control?

If you're wondering what I mean by that since seemingly nothing has really changed in MSMland, it's that Tim Russert may have been the one man standing between any semblance of objectivity and full-blown bias, and even if he wasn't, no one else has either his capabilities or discipline. Of course, it could be a good thing in the long run if the pretense of objectivity is eliminated from the network mix, but even if it is, the short run could be far more disgusting than things have been up to now, and I think that's really saying something.

Apart from that, Tim Russert's untimely death is a reminder that you don't have to be old to die suddenly, and that neither wealth nor standing can substitute for bad luck. I really don't know why I feel so badly about Tim Russert other than from the perspective that he died while Kennedy lives on, and I simply can't get over the idea that Russert's passing may be an omen for November and beyond…

 
The media loves McCain in South Carolina

Read an interesting article in The New York Times and The Washington Post on Senator John McCain's close victory Saturday night in the South Carolina Primary. What made the piece interesting were some of the things written about MCain's opponents.

Take this paragraph, for example:

"The distant third-place finish was a severe blow to the candidacy of Mr. Thompson, an actor and former Tennessee Senator. He had been counting on a strong showing in a Southern state to revive his fortunes, and gave a rambling speech in which he urged his followers to 'stand strong.'" Emphasis mine.

It doesn't take a journalism major to point out the negative slant of that statement. He gave a "rambling" speech? According to whom? Apparently, according to the writer who is supposed to report the facts NOT his opinion about the facts. In the same sentence, the writer uses another interesting word which frowns on the venerable Fred Thompson. (Oops! Did I say "venerable"? Oh yeah, I forgot; this is commentary , so I can say whatever I want.) Continuing onward, the writer uses the word "followers" to describe those who support Thompson. Such a descriptor/noun…whatever, conjures up images of a flock of mindless sheep. Couldn't the "reporter" have just written?:

"…Thompson, an actor and former Tennessee Senator … had been counting on a strong showing in a Southern state to revive his fortunes, and gave a speech in which he urged his supporters to 'stand strong."

Well…he could have, but that would not have had the desired effect.

The Washington Post, to their credit, did a much better job covering the story. However, they couldn't resist this, not so subtle, barb aimed at Huckabee:

"For Huckabee, a former Baptist minister, South Carolina with its large evangelical community offered him a chance to prove he was more than a one-state wonder after his victory in Iowa, where evangelicals were a strong force."

Well, perhaps the writer is correct. Maybe Huckabee is nothing more than a "one-state wonder," but last time I checked there were still more primaries to be held. What's more, is the negative spin used by the writer to describe Huckabee. According to The Washington Post, Ol' Huck had a chance to prove he was more than a "one-state wonder." But now that he's lost the primary in South Carolina we know the truth: He really is just a one-state wonder, a fluke (or a kook) of the rightwing, fundamentalist kind. 'Cause heaven knows, along with the "journalist" who wrote this piece, that Huck ain't got a prayer of winning another primary.

However, McCain is twice a winner in South Carolina–a hit with both the state and, for now, The Washington Post and The New York Times. Should Clinton or Obama manage to lose the general election, he (McCain) will be a nice concession to ease the pain of the liberal masses.