The Media's Imperfect Storm

[scribblet]

Media reporting. Harper may be onto something, better lock them out then have them give out disinformation.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/..._storm.htmlMedi

The Media's Imperfect Storm

By Jonah Goldberg

-snip-

That's certainly fair, given that the bar is set pretty low for what constitutes fair in American politics these days. But it is worth reminding people that the Katrina they think they remember wasn't the Katrina that actually took place. In fact, it is difficult to think of a bigger media scandal in my lifetime than the fraudulently inaccurate coverage of Hurricane Katrina.

Where to begin? As I've written before, virtually all of the gripping stories from Katrina were untrue. All of those stories about, in Paula Zahn's words, "bands of rapists, going block to block"? Not true. The tales of snipers firing on medevac helicopters? Bogus. The yarns, peddled on "Oprah" by New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and the New Orleans police chief, that "little babies" were getting raped in the Superdome and that the bodies of the murdered were piling up? Completely false. The stories about poor blacks dying in comparatively huge numbers because American society "left them behind"? Nah-ah. While most outlets took Nagin's estimate of 10,000 dead at face value, Editor and Publisher - the watchdog of the media - ran the headline, "Mortuary Director Tells Local Paper 40,000 Could Be Lost in Hurricane."

In all of Louisiana, not just New Orleans, the total dead from Katrina was roughly 1,500. Blacks did not die disproportionately, nor did the poor. The only group truly singled out in terms of mortality was the elderly. According to a Knight-Ridder study, while only 15 percent of the population of New Orleans was over the age of 60, some 74 percent of the dead were 60 or older, and almost half were older than 75. Blacks were, if anything, slightly underrepresented among the dead given their share of the population.

This barely captures how badly the press bungled Katrina coverage. Keep in mind

[Leader Circle]

Media reporting. Harper may be onto something, better lock them out then have them give out disinformation.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/..._storm.htmlMedi

The Media's Imperfect Storm

By Jonah Goldberg

-snip-

That's certainly fair, given that the bar is set pretty low for what constitutes fair in American politics these days. But it is worth reminding people that the Katrina they think they remember wasn't the Katrina that actually took place. In fact, it is difficult to think of a bigger media scandal in my lifetime than the fraudulently inaccurate coverage of Hurricane Katrina.

Where to begin? As I've written before, virtually all of the gripping stories from Katrina were untrue. All of those stories about, in Paula Zahn's words, "bands of rapists, going block to block"? Not true. The tales of snipers firing on medevac helicopters? Bogus. The yarns, peddled on "Oprah" by New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and the New Orleans police chief, that "little babies" were getting raped in the Superdome and that the bodies of the murdered were piling up? Completely false. The stories about poor blacks dying in comparatively huge numbers because American society "left them behind"? Nah-ah. While most outlets took Nagin's estimate of 10,000 dead at face value, Editor and Publisher - the watchdog of the media - ran the headline, "Mortuary Director Tells Local Paper 40,000 Could Be Lost in Hurricane."

In all of Louisiana, not just New Orleans, the total dead from Katrina was roughly 1,500. Blacks did not die disproportionately, nor did the poor. The only group truly singled out in terms of mortality was the elderly. According to a Knight-Ridder study, while only 15 percent of the population of New Orleans was over the age of 60, some 74 percent of the dead were 60 or older, and almost half were older than 75. Blacks were, if anything, slightly underrepresented among the dead given their share of the population.

This barely captures how badly the press bungled Katrina coverage. Keep in mind

In this politically correct world, putting racial spin on a news story sells!! It reminds the uninformed that we right wingers of the world are truly racists & bigots. It has become "old hat" for many, Stephen Harper included and it is nice to see him take a stand and throw a bone to local media groups like A-Channel London the other day!

[Michael Hardner]

It's very wrong headed to automatically assume that all biases are preplanned. Every story we hear causes us to reach back into our psyches for an easy way to process the information, hence bias happens. When we hear 'native blockade' or 'white collar criminal', certain images appear to us, and media reacts in much the same way.

New Orleans was an information vaccuum during this disaster, and unfortunately news media chose to broadcast rumour after rumour. It was unprofessional, disruptive, and sensationalist but you can't say that it was architected to unfold that way.

[Hicksey]

The media has its own agendas. You can easily tell just by watching the news on two or three different channels and usually their pet agendas get airtime out the wazoo, and stories that lead elsewhere are nowhere to be seen on others. To an extent, it IS planned. Do I think that there's a huge conspiracy? No.

[scribblet]

It's very wrong headed to automatically assume that all biases are preplanned. Every story we hear causes us to reach back into our psyches for an easy way to process the information, hence bias happens. When we hear 'native blockade' or 'white collar criminal', certain images appear to us, and media reacts in much the same way.

New Orleans was an information vaccuum during this disaster, and unfortunately news media chose to broadcast rumour after rumour. It was unprofessional, disruptive, and sensationalist but you can't say that it was architected to unfold that way.

I think you are right that it wasn't 'archectural' at first, but it did become an opportunity for the media to distort and smear the Bush admin. They used the disaster as a political tool, and we know now, made a lot of it up as they went along. Bush bashing in the extreme, their prejudice against the Bush administration clearly caused them to to turn facts into fictional events. More clearly, it was old fashined liberal media bias and partisian politics - in the extreme.

[Hicksey]

It's very wrong headed to automatically assume that all biases are preplanned. Every story we hear causes us to reach back into our psyches for an easy way to process the information, hence bias happens. When we hear 'native blockade' or 'white collar criminal', certain images appear to us, and media reacts in much the same way.

New Orleans was an information vaccuum during this disaster, and unfortunately news media chose to broadcast rumour after rumour. It was unprofessional, disruptive, and sensationalist but you can't say that it was architected to unfold that way.

I think you are right that it wasn't 'archectural' at first, but it did become an opportunity for the media to distort and smear the Bush admin. They used the disaster as a political tool, and we know now, made a lot of it up as they went along. Bush bashing in the extreme, their prejudice against the Bush administration clearly caused them to to turn facts into fictional events. More clearly, it was old fashined liberal media bias and partisian politics - in the extreme.

I think that since the media is dominated by liberals this is something we cannot avoid. What I think we should be doing is reminding people every time each media personality chooses to mail in their credibility and report such falsehoods. I think that letting them continue the misinformation and start using their own words against them show their incessant bashing of everything not liberal for the partisan hackery it really is, can actually benefit conservatives.

[scribblet]

Gotta post this one, its good, they got this one right.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/ed...6d-d33e8a46d706

Stephen Harper's brief tenure as Prime Minister has been marked by tactical brilliance. He has managed to produce a popular budget, lower Canada's tax burden, solve the softwood lumber dispute, improve relations with the Americans, boost federalist morale in Quebec, reinstate pride in our military, and kill (or fatally wound) a host of misguided Liberal initiatives. If an election were held today, the Conservatives likely would win a majority government.

Yet when he presents himself in front of cameras and microphones, Mr. Harper does not appear as the successful politican he has become. Instead, he comes across as prickly. No doubt, this defensive posture is a residue from the dark days of the Canadian Alliance and its immediate aftermath, when the nation's media was virtually united against them. No doubt too some of that bias is entrenched among the attitudes of the Ottawa press corps to this day.

Mr. Harper's government and the Parliamentary press gallery have sniped at one another from the start, largely because of the PMO's attempts to limit the damage that can be done to the government by hostile coverage.

But this week marked a new low. On Tuesday, a large group of reporters walked out of one of the PM's press conferences after being told Mr. Harper would only take questions from reporters who put their names on a PMO list. They allege the Prime Minister is playing favourites, giving preference to those reporters known for lobbing softballs -- admittedly, hardly a radical idea among practitioners of spin.

[Hicksey]

Gotta post this one, its good, they got this one right.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/ed...6d-d33e8a46d706

Stephen Harper's brief tenure as Prime Minister has been marked by tactical brilliance. He has managed to produce a popular budget, lower Canada's tax burden, solve the softwood lumber dispute, improve relations with the Americans, boost federalist morale in Quebec, reinstate pride in our military, and kill (or fatally wound) a host of misguided Liberal initiatives. If an election were held today, the Conservatives likely would win a majority government.

Yet when he presents himself in front of cameras and microphones, Mr. Harper does not appear as the successful politican he has become. Instead, he comes across as prickly. No doubt, this defensive posture is a residue from the dark days of the Canadian Alliance and its immediate aftermath, when the nation's media was virtually united against them. No doubt too some of that bias is entrenched among the attitudes of the Ottawa press corps to this day.

Mr. Harper's government and the Parliamentary press gallery have sniped at one another from the start, largely because of the PMO's attempts to limit the damage that can be done to the government by hostile coverage.

But this week marked a new low. On Tuesday, a large group of reporters walked out of one of the PM's press conferences after being told Mr. Harper would only take questions from reporters who put their names on a PMO list. They allege the Prime Minister is playing favourites, giving preference to those reporters known for lobbing softballs -- admittedly, hardly a radical idea among practitioners of spin.

I can't say SH rubs me as brilliant, but he is definitely a master of standing with one foot on either side of the fence. His tiff with the media is at least partially deserved because he just cannot expect to pick and choose who he will and will not speak to, and the questions they can and cannot ask. His attempts at doing so have gained him the label of "propagandist" in my eyes which is no better than the rottweilers in the national press. I agree with Harper that the press has been no less than hostile and on occasion has ignored the stories at hand to simply lambaste him for some of the silliest reasons.

But this feud is not just making the press look bad, they're dragging his good name down with them. If he allows it, he'll have lost this battle. He's farther off to hire a spin doctor, let him continually point out where the media has failed Canadians and be the better man.

[Michael Hardner]

I think you are right that it wasn't 'archectural' at first, but it did become an opportunity for the media to distort and smear the Bush admin. They used the disaster as a political tool, and we know now, made a lot of it up as they went along. Bush bashing in the extreme, their prejudice against the Bush administration clearly caused them to to turn facts into fictional events. More clearly, it was old fashined liberal media bias and partisian politics - in the extreme.

I won't deny there's a bias there, but it's not a conspiracy. After all the very same media adored Ronald Reagan. As for Bush, he has a gift for solliciting the very worst types of response from certain people, because of the way he communicates his ideas, IMO.

[August1991]

Yet when he presents himself in front of cameras and microphones, Mr. Harper does not appear as the successful politican he has become. Instead, he comes across as prickly.

That's it. That's the criticsm of Harper.

Underneath it all, I have the impression that the "sophisticated, Toronto" journalists don't like Harper's style. He's too prickly.

There is nothing in our Constitution stating that the PM has to meet journalists on a regular basis and answer questions of their choosing.

[Argus]

I can't say SH rubs me as brilliant, but he is definitely a master of standing with one foot on either side of the fence. His tiff with the media is at least partially deserved because he just cannot expect to pick and choose who he will and will not speak to, and the questions they can and cannot ask.

Why? I have watched press conferences held by various American presidents, and by British Prime Ministers. They take questions from whomever they want to . I think the idea that someone would dictate to them who they could and could not ask questions of at their own press conferences would strike them as astonishing. In fact, I suspect that is the case in Australia, in France, in Germany, and in most, if not all other countries. That was the case in Canada during Trudeau's time. I'm not sure when it changed, but in all likelihood the PMO allowed it to change at a time when the Liberals had an extremely cozy relationship with the press galler, who they knew were their friends, and so thought it was safe.

Does anyone know how it works for the likes of Charest, McGuinty and Klein? When they hold a press conference, it seems to me they just ask questions of whomever they want. Am I wrong about this? Trudeau did it that way, too. Why shouldn't Harper?

But this feud is not just making the press look bad, they're dragging his good name down with them. If he allows it, he'll have lost this battle.

I think he should utterly ignore them. Hold no news conferences with the press gallery, not speak to them at all, but speak often and give interviews to the regional and local media who act more professionally. I think he was wrong to complain that they were biased against him, as they are, and say he wouldn't be talking to them. He should have simply ignored them and said nothing. Let them watch him on TV giving news conferences in BC and wonder why no one invited them along.

[August1991]

Excellent column by Coyne:

Life, said Frank Zappa, is just like high school, only with money. Ottawa is like high school with other people's money. It's immensely cozy, and nowhere more so than in the tortured relationship between those two eternal codependents, press and politicians. That's what's so ridiculous about this spat: not just the triviality of it -- who gets to pick whose name from what list zzzz -- but the unreality of it.

...

Were they not fed such a consistent diet by their political and government sources, many of these reporters would be out of work. And indeed, the "independence" they are asserting now is mostly a demand that the government keep them supplied with clips and quotes in the usual way. It is the independence of the junkie from his pusher.

Well, fair enough. The press has interests like any other trade, and is entitled to defend them. What we're not entitled to do, however, is to dress up our complaints as some sort of constitutional crisis. It is not the responsibility of the government to make our jobs easier. And it is not our job to serve as the Opposition.

The task of holding the government to account, in a parliamentary democracy, is assigned to Members of Parliament. Were the government to presume to decide who could ask questions in Question Period, or in what order, that would be an outrage. This is a lovers' quarrel.

[gerryhatrick]

Oh sure, Johah Goldberg. He's a real bright boy! {puke}

Anyone who buys the bullsh$t that Harper is being treated with media bias has a pretty short memory. The liberals were roasted by the media down the home stretch of the last election. Harper should thank the media for electing him, period.

And most Conservatives - who lay claim to values of transparancy and accountability - are not happy about this. It makes Harper look weak besides going against those central values.

He needs to back-peddle on this one. His assurtion that regional media will be soft on him is naive. He's waved a red flag in front of their faces! What's next, lock out ALL media?

If you've been following this it's clear that it's about more than just who gets to ask the questions. Harper has been treating the media with contempt on a variety of issues. For example, the new accountability act was given to reporters just minutes before the press conference. How are they supposed to ask relavent informed questions if they don't have time to look at the information before the press conference? It's a pattern of small acts showing disrespect to the media, and by extension all Canadians who depend on media to keep them informed of what the government is up to.

[Argus]

If you've been following this it's clear that it's about more than just who gets to ask the questions. Harper has been treating the media with contempt on a variety of issues. For example, the new accountability act was given to reporters just minutes before the press conference. How are they supposed to ask relavent informed questions if they don't have time to look at the information before the press conference? It's a pattern of small acts showing disrespect to the media, and by extension all Canadians who depend on media to keep them informed of what the government is up to.

And yet, Canadians have scant respect for the media themselves. Polls consistently show that Canadians think the media is dishonest and biased, and they are accorded less respect and integrity than used car salesmen. So Harper is merely reflecting the attitude of the Canadian people.

[Canuck E Stan]

It's a pattern of small acts showing disrespect to the media, and by extension all Canadians who depend on media to keep them informed of what the government is up to.

Respect has to work both ways. The media has been gang banging those they don't respect for years, by not presenting the news as it is.

The media tries to creat the news instead of just reporting it.

To many opinionated,so called jounalists think they and their opinions are worth something important, but in reality it's just, one person's opinion.

They should get back to reporting and backing up their reporting with actual facts and cut the opinions,innuendo and association to non related stories to the story they are reporting on.

People have forgotten what a true news report is.

[gerryhatrick]

And yet, Canadians have scant respect for the media themselves. Polls consistently show that Canadians think the media is dishonest and biased, and they are accorded less respect and integrity than used car salesmen. So Harper is merely reflecting the attitude of the Canadian people.

Show me a poll that says Canadians think the Prime Minister shouldn't have to answer questions to the media.

'nuf said.

Harper is not doing what you describe, he's being immature and putulant and I think you realize that. He's got supporters who will never critisize him no matter what he does, and that's fine. Even they know the reality here.

[Argus]

And yet, Canadians have scant respect for the media themselves. Polls consistently show that Canadians think the media is dishonest and biased, and they are accorded less respect and integrity than used car salesmen. So Harper is merely reflecting the attitude of the Canadian people.

Show me a poll that says Canadians think the Prime Minister shouldn't have to answer questions to the media.

Show me a poll which says Canadians think the Prime Minister MUST answer questions and cannot decide who gets to ask them.

Harper is not doing what you describe, he's being immature and putulant and I think you realize that.

I don't think reporters get to choose who asks the questions in other countries and don't see why they should get to make that decision here. I know they didn't get to do it for Trudeau or Pearson. I understand that Martin chose who he would take questions from during the election campaign. Why all the fuss now?

[Canuck E Stan]

Not everyone thinks Harper is wrong on this press gallery fight.

Levine, who wrote the 1993 book Scrum Wars: The Prime Ministers and the Media,said this about the confontation between the press gallery and the Prime Minister:

A prime minister who goes along with whatever the press wants, in the end, historically, does not win.

Levine backs up Harper's assertion that the press gallery has become the Opposition -- and he adds that the media has, in fact, seen itself in that light since about 1957, when John Diefenbaker was prime minister and when the press started to become "less partisan."

"They have been the unofficial opposition since about 1957 and they have seen themselves that way. And that's why, I think, if you examine the historical record, I don't think any prime minister thinks they can really control the media. They also can't be friends with the media entirely, and in the end, the media will turn on them."

CTV

[Hicksey]

And yet, Canadians have scant respect for the media themselves. Polls consistently show that Canadians think the media is dishonest and biased, and they are accorded less respect and integrity than used car salesmen. So Harper is merely reflecting the attitude of the Canadian people.

Show me a poll that says Canadians think the Prime Minister shouldn't have to answer questions to the media.

Show me a poll which says Canadians think the Prime Minister MUST answer questions and cannot decide who gets to ask them.

Harper is not doing what you describe, he's being immature and putulant and I think you realize that.

I don't think reporters get to choose who asks the questions in other countries and don't see why they should get to make that decision here. I know they didn't get to do it for Trudeau or Pearson. I understand that Martin chose who he would take questions from during the election campaign. Why all the fuss now?

I think the only reason the left is supporting the press is purely partisan. I think they want the press to try to tear Harper down. I really think its that simple mostly because I haven't read a post that suggests otherwise.

[gerryhatrick]

And yet, Canadians have scant respect for the media themselves. Polls consistently show that Canadians think the media is dishonest and biased, and they are accorded less respect and integrity than used car salesmen. So Harper is merely reflecting the attitude of the Canadian people.

Show me a poll that says Canadians think the Prime Minister shouldn't have to answer questions to the media.

Show me a poll which says Canadians think the Prime Minister MUST answer questions and cannot decide who gets to ask them.

I don't think that would be a very hard poll to produce, actually.

It's called being accountable, and if you think Canadians don't think their PM needs to practice it you're kidding yourself.

[Hicksey]

And yet, Canadians have scant respect for the media themselves. Polls consistently show that Canadians think the media is dishonest and biased, and they are accorded less respect and integrity than used car salesmen. So Harper is merely reflecting the attitude of the Canadian people.

Show me a poll that says Canadians think the Prime Minister shouldn't have to answer questions to the media.

Show me a poll which says Canadians think the Prime Minister MUST answer questions and cannot decide who gets to ask them.

I don't think that would be a very hard poll to produce, actually.

It's called being accountable, and if you think Canadians don't think their PM needs to practice it you're kidding yourself.

Anyone that voted for the Liberal party after the scandals of the last 13 years is hardly in a position to lecture anyone about accountability, considering their actions suggest that they don't believe in it.

[geoffrey]

I'd rather get my info on the government from the government... not the media. It's rather sad to say I trust the government more.

Media is all spin to make a quick buck. Anti-war, anti-Americanism and radical liberal agendas sell papersin this country, its obvious where the paper are aiming their spin to.

[gerryhatrick]

Anyone that voted for the Liberal party after the scandals of the last 13 years is hardly in a position to lecture anyone about accountability, considering their actions suggest that they don't believe in it.

Pure nonsense. Debate the issue at hand, stop throwing dry mud.

[gerryhatrick]

I'd rather get my info on the government from the government... not the media. It's rather sad to say I trust the government more.

You naively (or perhaps willfully) think the media is a simple unit motivated to a single purpose.

It is astounding to me that you would forgo all responsibility of reporting to your government.

Obviously there is bad reporting in the media, just like there are bad actions in government. Both should be on display for all to judge. Under Harpers vision his government gets removed from display, except for what he wants to show you.

Do you seriously think he will show you the warts?

Harper supporters should be writing letters and phoning and doing whatever else they can to get their leader to stop picking fights with the press....if you care about your PM that is.

[Argus]

Show me a poll which says Canadians think the Prime Minister MUST answer questions and cannot decide who gets to ask them.

I don't think that would be a very hard poll to produce, actually.

It's called being accountable, and if you think Canadians don't think their PM needs to practice it you're kidding yourself.

Bullshit.

The government is accountable to the people, not a self-selected group of political ideolgues who represent no one.

I've asked it before, but no one seems to be interested in answering. What other nations governments let some third party decide who the prime minister/president/king/dictator can take questions from. In what other nation would the prime minister/president/king/dictator point to a reporter at a presss conrference and ask him his question, and have the reporter say "Uhm, you can't speak to me. You have to ask that other guy the question because the press gallery head - who loathes you - decided he was first."

In addition, how does it go at provincial press conferences? Does some kind of journalists organization get to decide which journalists will ask questions of the premiers, and which ones the premier will speak to?