Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

Recommended Photo Store
 
Buy Through Our Amazon Link or Banner to Support This Blog
 
 
 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Lex's Tweets
  • Jonathan's Tweets
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Media Malfeasance, Media Credibility

    Posted by David Foster on September 23rd, 2011 (All posts by )

    Rex Murphy offers a summary of the ways in which the traditional media supported Obama’s candidacy:

    Much of the Obama coverage was orchestrated sycophancy. They glided past his pretensions — when did a presidential candidate before “address the world” from the Brandenberg Gate in Berlin? They ignored his arrogance — “You’re likable enough, Hillary.” And they averted their eyes from his every gaffe — such as the admission that he didn’t speak “Austrian.”

    The media walked right past the decades-long association of Obama with the weird and racist pastor Jeremiah Wright. In the midst of the brief stormlet over the issue, one CNN host — inexplicably — decided that CNN was going to be a “Wright-free zone.” He could have hung out a sign: “No bad news about Obama here.”

    If a company filing an Initial Public Offering were to conduct a campaign of misinformation, disinformation, and lying by omission on the level of what the dinosaur media did for Obama, that company and its officers would certainly face legal action, quite probably involving criminal as well as civil charges.

    Will the traditional media be taken seriously as a source of information in the upcoming election season? Elizabeth Scalia thinks maybe not:

    A while back, I asked my very frustrated mother-in-law why she voted for Barack Obama, and she shrugged, “I could only go by what I heard.”

    She meant the nightly network news shows, which she and Pop watch or listen to while they bustle around the kitchen…Information worth listening to was the provenance of the press. For her generation, the press was meant to be listened to and trusted.

    and

    At a large, multi-generational family gathering this past weekend, inevitable discussions arose about the economy, jobs, and the bleak outlook for the immediate future. The general consensus was that our president is a failure, the congress is a wreck, and there is no authenticity or originality in our leadership, nor in our press. A majority in attendance—both Democrats and Republicans—had voted for Barack Obama (a few grudgingly, as they had supported Clinton) but while everyone expressed disappointment (there was not a single voice raised in support of the president) the senior citizens confided a deep sense of betrayal—of their trust being shattered.

    Both links are worth reading in full.

     

    15 Responses to “Media Malfeasance, Media Credibility”

    1. Bill Brandt Says:

      I think the MSM’s main sin with Obama was the sin of omission. Turn any situation around with him and if it were a Republican – would they have acted the same?

    2. Sgt. Mom Says:

      Obama got treated like a precious, lusterous pearl – and anything that threatened to dimm it was ignored. At a cost to the media’s credibility that they are just now realizing. Some of them who went all out for Obama are trying, belatedly, to walk it back and excuse themselves, but I believe many of the others will go down with the ship.

    3. Bill Brandt Says:

      I hope that is true Sgt – couldn’t happen to nicer people! You know, if it weren’t for the “New Media” (A blog broke the story of Dan Rather’s fake document in re: Bush’s national Guard Service) – if it weren’t for them news reporting life would have gone blissfully on.

      And in writing this the thought occurred to me that if the MSM knows people are watching them – people with the ability to get their own views out to the world – wouldn’t you think they would report more objectively?

      Only one of two possible reasons why they don’t:

      1. Arrogance

      2. true Belief in what they are reporting

      (might be a combination of both)

    4. Robert Schwartz Says:

      Bill: Omission? Well, yes there many things they omitted. But it was deliberate and with malice aforethought. It is just as much fraud as is lying straight out. But, then again, I told you so.

    5. David Foster Says:

      Related–Sgt Mom: the juggernaut

    6. Bill Brandt Says:

      Robert – I agree with you on one level but I have also come to believe liberalism is a religion – a world view – from which everything not acceptable to it is “filtered out”.

      This these reporters (and more importantly news editors) may see opposing sides but they are true believers – the 60s radical generation coming to fruition.

      I was just thinking of that Washington Post reporter who felt the need to expose some of the secrets of the special ops operators.

    7. tyouth Says:

      MSM, in an age where knowledge is more accessible than it has ever been, cannot be trusted to print the truth. This has been apparent for a long time. There is no excuse for not knowing this and for considering the the reasons behind anti-Obama sentiments before the election. A large portion of the electorate are apparently not qualified, intellectually and morally, to be voters in an ongoing, successful republic. The people that didn’t know the truth about Obama’s character were people who were too lazy, or too stupid, or too Democratic to dig just a little bit to find out about him, his record, and his associates.

      They are philistines; people who, because they are “all right”, believe that the world is “all right”.

    8. Blake Says:

      My mom, bless her heart, is 78 years old. She is a low end consumer of news. (MSM) Yet Mom managed to see right through the empty suit that is President Obama.

      Plenty of different people pointed out that President Obama had zero executive experience. Even MSM couldn’t hide Obama’s lack of experience. Those people who voted for Obama and are feeling betrayed best look in the mirror, because, in the end, it’s their responsibility.

    9. dearieme Says:

      What was the choice? Hellary’s only substantial experience was as bagman for her corrupt husband; McCain was past it.

    10. zhombre Says:

      Quite right, dearieme! The Empty Suit has a genius for self presentation and mimicry (allowing him to appear to be what his audience wants him to be) and was also lucky. But appearances wear thin, and luck runs out.

    11. tomw Says:

      Why would they report more objectively? The only reason is to maintain market share, be it print or broadcast media.
      Arrogance and True Belief are two good reasons, but the more likely is the inability to think beyond what they are told to report. They are the product of a significantly biases educational system that has not allowed them the opportunity, in journalism schools at least, to think on their own and arrive at resonable conclusions.
      They have never been taught that skill.
      They don’t now how.
      They don’t know what really drives market share, either, or they would be paying attention to the other 50% of their possible audience, which they don’t.
      tom

    12. Assistant Village Idiot Says:

      I wish the disillusionment would spread. My 86 y/o uncle, who I am named for and have been arguing with online for 15 years, still believes the NYT and the Sunday morning shows are the height of credibility because they are “real” journalists, while all this new media is “just bloggers.”

    13. David Foster Says:

      Television, truth, and reality

    14. tyouth Says:

      “The only reason is to maintain market share…”

      Tomw, if you really want to lose some IQ points quickly, try watch the morning shows. Insipid coverage of dancing with the stars or, if it’s not the network that broadcasts Dancing With the Stars, coverage of some other “reality”, fashion, or media awards event. I hope we don’t get the coverage of the world we deserve but I fear we do.

    15. Dwight Says:

      I get the feeling the media would title the presidential memoirs “Dizzy with Success”.

    Leave a Reply

    Comments Policy:  By commenting here you acknowledge that you have read the Chicago Boyz blog Comments Policy, which is posted under the comment entry box below, and agree to its terms.

    A real-time preview of your comment will appear under the comment entry box below.

    Comments Policy

    Chicago Boyz values reader contributions and invites you to comment as long as you accept a few stipulations:

    1) Chicago Boyz authors tend to share a broad outlook on issues but there is no party or company line. Each of us decides what to write and how to respond to comments on his own posts. Occasionally one or another of us will delete a comment as off-topic, excessively rude or otherwise unproductive. You may think that we deleted your comment unjustly, and you may be right, but it is usually best if you can accept it and move on.

    2) If you post a comment and it doesn't show up it was probably blocked by our spam filter. We batch-delete spam comments, typically in the morning. If you email us promptly at we may be able to retrieve and publish your comment.

    3) You may use common HTML tags (italic, bold, etc.). Please use the "href" tag to post long URLs. The spam filter tends to block comments that contain multiple URLs. If you want to post multiple URLs you should either spread them across multiple comments or email us so that we can make sure that your comment gets posted.

    4) This blog is private property. The First Amendment does not apply. We have no obligation to publish your comments, follow your instructions or indulge your arguments. If you are unwilling to operate within these loose constraints you should probably start your own blog and leave us alone.

    5) Comments made on the Chicago Boyz blog are solely the responsibility of the commenter. No comment on any post on Chicago Boyz is to be taken as a statement from or by any contributor to Chicago Boyz, the Chicago Boyz blog, its administrators or owners. Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners, by permitting comments, do not thereby endorse any claim or opinion or statement made by any commenter, nor do they represent that any claim or statement made in any comment is true. Further, Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners expressly reject and disclaim any association with any comment which suggests any threat of bodily harm to any person, including without limitation any elected official.

    6) Commenters may not post content that infringes intellectual property rights. Comments that violate this rule are subject to deletion or editing to remove the infringing content. Commenters who repeatedly violate this rule may be banned from further commenting on Chicago Boyz. See our DMCA policy for more information.