I haven't wanted to comment on the long, whiny Politico article about how the meanies in the Obama administration controls press access to the president. But I'm struck by the fact that this is being complained about:
Still, the most unique twist by this White House has been the government's generating and distributing of content.D.C. journos are miffed because the White House can generate its own soft news coverage? What do the journos expect? Have they been paying attention to anything that's been going on in other media for approximately a decade?
[This was] on vivid display two weekends ago, when the White House released a six-month-old photo of the president shooting skeet, buttressing his claim in a New Republic interview that he fires at clay pigeons "all the time" at Camp David.
... [Senior adviser Dan] Pfeiffer and White House press secretary Jay Carney tweeted a link to the photo, with Pfeiffer writing that it was "[f]or all the skeeters" (doubters, or "skeet birthers"). Longtime adviser David Plouffe then taunted critics on Twitter: "Attn skeet birthers. Make our day - let the photoshop conspiracies begin!" Plouffe soon followed up with: "Day made. The skeet birthers are out in full force in response to POTUS pic. Makes for most excellent, delusional reading." ...
As anyone who pays the slightest attention to pop music (and, these days, books) has figured out, you can self-publish if you want, using this new thing called the Internet. And especially if you're already famous, you can put your own stuff out on your own site and it can get a hell of a lot of attention, if perhaps not quite the same level of attention you get if the transmission is through a media giant.
So the White House doesn't always need courtier journalists to release its soft stories -- it can post them the way Radiohead posted the album In Rainbows and the public can grab the content directly.
This leaves the press the job of having to figure out what it can offer that's different from self-published White House content. And that, I believe, would be, y'know, um, journalism. Ever heard of it? Dig around and come up with a story that's not spoon-fed to you by official sources? That sort of thing?
Instead, we get this:
The frustrated Obama press corps neared rebellion this past holiday weekend when reporters and photographers were not even allowed onto the Floridian National GolfClub, where Obama was golfing. That breached the tradition of the pool "holding" in the clubhouse and often covering -- and even questioning -- the president on the first and last holes.Guys? Seventy journalists were killed last year worldwide, and 232 are currently imprisoned. So cry me a river. (And if you think Team Obama invented press manipulation, go read this.)
6 comments:
I read that book on Reagan manipulated the press. No surprise that today's stenographers, uh, I mean, journalists haven’t!
"The frustrated Obama press corps neared rebellion ..."
Rebel against, exactly, what? For that matter, exactly, how?
Fracking kandi assed kry babies.
No fear...
So, 12 years of ignoring Reagan and Bush Sr., and after 8 years of sniffing in the Clinton families garbage, and poking around in their stuff, and then 8 years of being human @$$-lickers, knob-polishers, cojones washers, and stenographers, for the Bush JR. mis-administration, and then following that up with 4 years of reading right-wing talking points during Obama's Presidency, they have the temerity to whine about how they're treated?
Go whine on someone else's dime, Ed Henry & Co.
You're about as relevant as mammaries on a male bovine. And Ed, you're even less relevant than that.
What a bunch of pampered @$$holes!!!
Folks, aren't we being a wee bit sanctimonious here.
Who watches/ reads Lame street media hmmm?
Aren't we forgetting the "American way" ... Business is Pop,Junior and Spook (the unholy Trinity).
LSM isn't there to inform you or protect our rights (that's spin) and both are inhibitors to business.
It's all about tolerance.
Simply put; Give the people (consumers) the least they will tolerate and charge the Advertisers (clients) the most they will tolerate The difference is PROFIT.
It's a matter of cheapest LSM knows that investigative journalism costs lots of money and the return (% of profit) simply doesn't justify the out lay. Besides most of the public only wants short sensational topics with instant analysis that support their own opinions anyway.
Likewise the Internet, the Bloggersphere isn't that crash hot either. Most bloggers are simply
'segmenting the the market into niches'. Like LSM the authors are most often under qualified (in either education and or specialised experience) to be reliable, authoritative or objective in other than their limited knowledge and opinions. The latter is often colored by their emotional based bias etc. They tend to rely on the same (justifiably) maligned LSM as sources or other equally suspect bloggers or sites.
To be fair most bloggers don't have the resources to investigate/ fact check, research either.
In bitter truth both are no more than biased polemic s (albeit with slightly different degrees of similar motives)
The other sad fact is that most of the public want to emote rather than examine or be inspired unless it agrees with their preconditioned/conceived views(beliefs) . Ask yourself when was the last time you spent more than a couple of hours on a topic researching or gaining the expertise needed to be objective in your comments?
My favorite attack on Extreme conservatives (sic) is to ask them what tertiary knowledge do they have on say ACC (AGW) then ask them some technical questions like list 15 of the 40+ specialised disciplines in involved. In variably they manage 3-4, period. The logic dictates their authoritativeness on the topic.
Call me pedantic (need to get a life) but prior to 'an inconvenient truth' My reading had prompted me to enter under graduate 1st year subjects from a university to learn the basics. ( took 3 months at about 1.5 hrs per night 100 hrs to gain a 'B' at that level) One on line set of classes on the climate alone has 12 X1.5 hrs of videos add the reading and the tutorials. You quickly get the point on how inadequate the MSM and the armchair denier are at coming close to understanding the issues. Much less being able to ask intelligent questions or interpret the significance or reliability of research. Clearly I'm no expert but then again I don't pretend to be either.
To the point at hand given the above facts neither the MSM journalists can rightfully claim any kudos as a source but then again neither can we (I) .
Gosh, I don't remember all these "journalists" bitching and sobbing when Sarah Palin drove the national debate on health care reform from her Facebook page or Twitter stream.
thanks for share..
Post a Comment