Memogate: A few innocent observations
I know we're all sick and tired of the CBS/Dan Rather/TANG/IBM Selectric fiasco, but that's no reason for me to ignore it. Permit me, if you will, to share a couple of observations about it:
- Because my parents are in town tonight, and because they prefer to watch news programs, I've been exposed to more TV pundits than usual, ranging from Lester Holt to Larry King to Greta van Susteren. Every one of them has focused at least part of their shows on Memogate, and most of them had other journalists commenting on the situation. Without exception, every guest has said that this is a story that now needs to go away so we can focus on the "real issues" of the election. What I find interesting is that none of these folks passed up the opportunity to appear on network or cable TV to express their opinions before stating that it's time to move on.
In other words, it's time to move on...after they've had their say on the matter. I'm sure there's a good adjective to describe this situation; "hypocritical" is one that comes to mind. - Speaking of Lester Holt, did you catch his show on MSNBC this afternoon? I caught the tailend of an interview with blogger Micky Kaus in which Holt was quizzing him about the changing role of blogging in the news reporting and analysis arena. I tried unsuccessfully to find a transcript of the show. Anyway, Holt lobbed a softball Kaus' way by asking if Memogate heralded a change in the way blogs would be viewed by the general public vis-a-vis the MSM, especially in terms of credibility. Kaus replied in the affirmative, with no hesitation. The answer was predictable, but the question wasn't, coming as it did from someone who makes his living in the MSM. (Of course, I'm sure all the MSM guys think that credibility is a problem for all the other MSM guys, and that they themselves are the trustworthy exceptions.)
Holt also asked a question about the fact that blogs also tend to have agendas, and why they are anymore credible than the MSM. Kaus' response was that, yes, there are blogs all over the political spectrum, but the difference is that the blogosphere tends to be self-policing and self-correcting. He also mentioned a couple of popular blogs such as Instapundit and Josh Marshall who tend to act as "traffic cops," maintaining a more-or-less neutral stance on many issues.
To his credit -- or perhaps because he was out of time -- Holt didn't attempt to argue the issue with Kaus; as a result, the program ended with essentially an unchallenged assertion regarding the increasing irrelevance of the MSM. - Despite all of this fawning attention, I can't help but think of the old saying, "pride goes before a fall." Bloggers would do well to ponder that truth.
...which is, by implication, an astoundingly damaging admission.
I didn't put forth this report as an exact quote of what was said, because my memory isn't that good. Don't read too much into that "also" because it wasn't intended as a comparison to the MSM (if it's even the word used by Holt), but rather as a reference to some of the aspects of blogs that might argue against them being one's only source of news and opinion.
Ten years ago, Memogate wouldn't have happened and Rather would be quoting from his forged memos right up to election day.
Uh, try five years ago...maybe even four.
Don't you think that MSM observers (ie. the general public) have always perceived some level of bias in the media? The difference today is that there's now something that can be done to address it, and someone (MANY someones) who can do it. The real strength of the blogosphere is its empowerment. And, you're right...there are those to whom that empowerment represents the worst possible scenario.
Posted by: Eric at September 22, 2004 07:06 PMDon't you think that MSM observers (ie. the general public) have always perceived some level of bias in the media?
Personally?
No.
From what I've seen, the general public will believe anything they're told, providing it's delivered in a serious monotone by a suit on the nightly news.
It's a horrifying thought, but there's thousands of people who actually believe the mainstream news isn't biased for no other reason than it's being broadcast.
I saw the media spoon-feed the general public preposterous, shameful lies about what a so-called "assault rifle" is and what it supposedly could do back in 1993-94.
I also saw the public eagerly swallow whatever guys like Dan Rather, Ted Koppel, Tom Brokaw, and Peter Jennings fed them.
I got into countless arguments with people telling me how those rifles were (and I quote) "the preferred weapon of drug dealers", "military-issue weapons anyone could walk into a store and buy", "more powerful than regular rifles and able to spray bullets non-stop" etc. etc. ad nauseum.
...and then, inevitably, at some point they'd reveal the source of their information.
"I know what I'm saying is right because I saw it on The News! Didn't you see that 2-hour Special Report (insert name of favorite biased, anti-gun news-caster) did?"
But that's old news.
Nowadays, I'm watching the same people eagerly swallowing whatever Michael Moore feeds them.
Why? Because the film maker is given credence and implicit accreditation from constant, respectful, media coverage.
Unfortunately, many people have never learned to question the source or the source's motives.
Posted by: Mr. Freen at September 23, 2004 10:52 AMAbout the publisher
Random Abbye photos...
Random Thursday: The Abbreviated Tuesday Political Edition
More rattler than meets the eye
Poop happens. And then disappears.
How the West was Won
Beware of Vampire Dog
Tieing? There's no tieing in gymnastics!
NBC Bungles Web Video
Random Thursday: The Monday Olympics Edition
On Holiday
Random Thursday
Chair Play
Book Review: "The Road"
Education is paramount. Well, next to jet skiing.
Warbirds, Old and New
The Neighborhood:
West Texas Blogs:
[Midland unless otherwise indicated]
Other Texas Blogs:
The Business:
The Church:
The World:
"I know we're all sick and tired of the CBS/Dan Rather/TANG/IBM Selectric fiasco..."
Who says? :p
I'm absolutely thrilled by it. Because now, at long last, Dan Rather has been solidly discredited.
The next time Dan Rather starts potificating his biased "facts" at a pro-life activist, or a pro-gun activist, or any other activist he opposes, all they have to do is smile and ask him one question...
"You got your information from another memo. Didn't you, Dan?"
I would pay to be the one who gets to sink that barb into Rather's flank during a live-feed.
"Holt also asked a question about the fact that blogs also tend to have agendas"
...which is, by implication, an astoundingly damaging admission.
In other words, blogs also tend to have agendas the same way the mainstream media does!
But unlike the mainstream media, most blogs don't pretend to be totally unbiased "news sources", either.
What's beginning to happen is something the media has done their utmost to prevent. A dissemination of all the information on an issue, unimpeded by a newscaster's (or a station's) individual agenda.
It doesn't matter if the information is on some "right wing" blog or a "left wing" blog. Either it will hold up to intensive scrutiny or it won't. But that scrutiny is going to come from both sides.
Not just a hand-picked group of "experts" designed to corroborate whatever drivel is being promoted by the media. Just look at the experts CBS and Rather lined up who put their professional reputations behind the validity of those documents. Where are those loud voices now?
Little wonder the media is beginning to fear independent on-line news sources, particularly blogs. For once, there's a news source they don't control. One that will broadcast information the "news broadcasters" would rather see suppressed.
Ten years ago, Memogate wouldn't have happened and Rather would be quoting from his forged memos right up to election day.
Posted by: Mr. Freen at September 22, 2004 01:12 PM