Where is the media's parallel universe?
(Has Tony Snow found it yet?)
By Mark Kilmer Posted in Blogosphere — Comments (6) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Some of those who work in the media, it seems, have opinions of themselves and their fellows which are at distinct variance with reality, as if from a "Reality Based Community" where A is B and actions are to be guided by Universal Nuances.
White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, at the National Press Club on Tuesday, peers into the lefty blogosphere and describes what he sees [vid]:
I'll occasionally punch it up and it's amazing, you get this wonderful imaginative hateful stuff that comes flying out, and, I think one of the, the, the, maybe one of the, the most important takeaways is, it's the classic old line "not only should you not believe your own press you probably shouldn't believe your opposition blogs either."
But that's only part of it.
Snow spoke at an NPC event with NBC's David Gregory and Richard Wolffe (two f's) of the Newsweek glossy, both of whom took their little shots at blogs. (The event was covered by John Amato of Crooks and Liars and treated by Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters.org.)
Read abut the Multiverse below the fold.…
Here's David Gregory:
Because it- it's the Internet, and the blogs, that have really used this White House press conference to somehow support positions out in America- political views- and they- and they- uh- they will clip, and digitize portions of these briefings to fit into their particular argument and I think people try to divine motives of the questioners and- and certainly draw conclusions about, uh, the answers, or- or non-answers, uh, based on their, their, their own political views.
That is sound-byte journalism, Dave, and to borrow from an old Billy Joel song: "We didn't start the fire." (NOTE: It is better to quote Billy Joel, songwriter, than Perry Como, song-stylist.)
From the Newsweek guy (Wolffe):
I think the press here does a fantastic job of adhering to journalistic standards in covering politics in general. And the, um, the interesting thing in, in looking at the political coverage as people try to guess what we do is, is that they want us to play a role that really isn't our role. Our- our role is to ask questions and get information. But it- the press briefing isn't Prime Minister's question time.
Does that have a laugh track, or are we to provide it ourselves. That can be arranged, you know. He's saying that members of the media ask questions and report the answer, but the public want them to offer interpretation and opinion. The media won't do this, he relates with a straight face (I assume), because they realize that it is just not their role. It might be a naïve belief in the nobility of blah-blah-blah, but he's a White House correspondent. Then again, Helen Thomas is his dean.
Oh, you be the judge. This is Richard Wolffe, and it is his version of objectivity. I'm not sure from which part of the comic book Multiverse this line of thought reaches it. Where is Okinawa on that globe?
It is rare to find an article in political coverage which is not laced with the reporter's bias and opinions. Yes, this is just as true of blogs and opinion journals, so it is not like the mainstream media are the only ones guilty of opinion-based slant.
But it was all idle chatter, disposable chat chat distributed by the blogs so we can know who's giving us the news.
« Standby . . . — Comments (46) | NASCAR: John Edwards' Blogger Has Some Thoughts — Comments (19) »
Where is the media's parallel universe? 6 Comments (0 topical, 6 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
well at least some of them do. The others are oblivious, having created an impenetrable self image, and a very self flattering one at that. You can't reach these people, it's hopeless.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Why a Press Corp at all? What the heck is a press anyway, we have the internets now, right? It would be much more efficient if Tony wrote all the headlines/articles/opinions and then just passed them out to the news outlets. One man, one job, one way.
Or was that more sarcasm than Mobyism?
We do not want a Bush Administration controlling the press any more than we'd ask the same of a Rodham Administration. (That's as closest as I've come to admitting the possibility of such a beast!)
The issue, I think, is a media which is about the opinions of the reporters being passed as news. That's is a different kind of evil than the government doing it, but it is perverse nonetheless.
Ring ring ring goes the bell.
Two days ago, I informed you that not only were you not as funny as you thought you were, but that commenters whose whole existence is dedicated to substanceless snark have a short half-life here.
You apparently declined my invitation to change your position on the periodic table.
No great loss.
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
commenters whose whole existence is dedicated to substanceless snark have a short half-life here.
I *am* in trouble.
-- Snarcrates

If only the White House Press Corps were as transparent to themselves as they are to the viewers.... They must not even realize how they appear, or they could never keep a straight face when they say how objective the are.