The media is doing an incredibly awful job, and the fact that they’ve faded from bright yellow to some pastel shade is a lame excuse. I think Bob Somerby gets it right when he points out that this incredibly biased coverage put Bush in the White House and led us directly into Iraq. There is a direct causal chain from Ceci Connely to Iraq. This media bullshit is why we are in Iraq. If they had even had a little evenhandedness, we wouldn’t be in Iraq. This is a matter of record, now, you can dismiss, but you can’t deny.

And they’re doing it again! John Edwards’ hair! Just read the Daily Howler, for chrissakes. It gets nauseating, though, so if you want to feel all special and even-handed by blaming the Democrats for being slandered, feel free. But you’d be full of shit if you did.

The fact of the matter is that it is media concentration. Murdoch, the Sulzbergers, and the Grahams control the papers, and 4 or 5 mega media conglomerates control network news. This is where almost everyone in the country gets their news. The networks are all controlled by Republican CEO’s, and the print media have some bizarre hatred for dems, as this story shows. And the NY Times went after Clinton, too! Remember Wen Ho Lee? Hell, even Jon Stewart is a self-described libertarian!

Lemme tell you, I went to a private school, and I know what these upper-middle-class, striving little pukes who populate the newsrooms are like. They may be “liberal,” in an incredibly watered-down centrist way, but they are even more self-serving, spineless, craven and approval-seeking. If the boss doesn’t like a Dem, if he thinks a major Dem is a “class traitor” (John Edwards, anyone?), our little press puke will fall all over himself to make the boss happy, his own “convictions” be damned. This is what we’re seeing in the media. The bigotries of the rich, and the pathetic grasping of the petit-Bourgeoise amplifying those bigotries.

And at the end of the day, the people don’t have a clue what candidates stand for. The press can’t even get simple statements right. Voters are left with bullshit narrative, and we get the worst leadership possible – unless you’re a rich-ass press baron! Then it’s all gravy!

Bring on Iran! Blame the dems for being gang-raped by the press! Whee!

When you have to have someone on screen almost constantly, you sometimes have to stretch the definition of what is “news”.

Which explains the brutally annoying and despicable coverage of the recent mine collapse.

“THIS JUST IN! BREAKING NEWS: WE MAY HAVE NEWS FOR YOU SOON!”

The bad news is that the media are more and more concentrated in a small circle of poweful hands.

You make an excellent point but I’d also point out the need for more and more news in the 24/7 news cycle. When you have to have someone on screen almost constantly, you sometimes have to stretch the definition of what is “news”.

However, since it’s unlikely we’ll return to the days of yesteryear where Americans got most of their news from reading the local paper and watching Cronkite for 30 minutes each evening, we as news consumers have to adapt. And to some extent many have. There are lots of media watchdog groups representing both the left and right side of the political spectrum. They too often overdue it, but at least they are there.

That’s true, except that the opposite of book smarts is not necessaritly common sense. It can as easily be election samrts, appealing to baser instincts smarts, or a host of other samrts.

The good news is, that in comparison to the openly libelous press in the early years of the US, the media are now tamer. Despite the associated problems, notions about equal time, fair and unbiased reporting and accountability have raised public expectations. We criticize the press more for less horrendous misuse of their power than what was the case in the rather distant past.

The bad news is that the media are more and more concentrated in a small circle of poweful hands. Those hands are increasingly profit driven, not truth telling driven.
That bodes ill, for the kind of in-depth investigative reporting that has been the saving grace of MSM. It favors a one-view-fits-all news coverage.

We have to read with extreme caution and scepticism. That;s not good in all ways, however, because when the public becomes sceptical about everything, it loses its footing. The very notion of what is ture and what is not becomes vague and diffuse.

This phenomena of the media controlling the narrative probably is hurtful to our system of electing our presidents, but so are a lot of other factors. Ultimately, it’s up to the candidates and their campaign teams to deal with that situation and overcome any negative press. The MSM wasn’t exactly friendly to Bush 41either (remember the brouhaha about the elder Bush not knowing what a grocery scanner was?) and although the GOP got some mileage out of this (bumper stickers reading: “Annoy the media, elect George Bush”), the negative reporting only had an effect because it had a ring of truth to it and the candidate wasn’t able to overcome that image.

To apply this to “W” vs. Algore, the media recognized that the public would be more annoyed by a wonkish guy who overstated his accomplishments than by a ‘regular guy’ who often mangled his speeches. Americans (for better or worse) tend to value common sense over ‘book smarts’. To some extent, I think the pundits like to be seen as predicting the public opinion and in doing so, they also help create it.

Anyway, I think it’s wise for us to be wary of the media caricatures, but it’s also the candidates’ responsibility to try to rise above them.

I’ve been saying this for years, but it’s just too easy to repeat self-serving cliches and slogans.

As a whole,the media have never been fair or accountable or responsible. Their bias is in faovr of grabbing attention with juicy stories, and the methods and victims on that path are just incidental..

At the same time, though, there has been excellent reporting done, shedding light on neglected and dark areas. Sometimes, investigative reporting has even brought about significan change. Watergate, anyone?

O, wait

Oh yes, GWB has never, ever, put his foot in his mouth or said something completely retarded. The media was always quick to point that out, and GWB was hampered throughout his entire campaign by his poor oratory skills. That’s why he lost the presidential election in 2000 and again in 2004, because the American people were repulsed by such a candidate that said such stupid and blatantly untrue statements.

In a March 1999 interview with Wolf Blitzer, Gore said, “During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.”

Earned Income Tax Credit
“I was the author of that proposal.  I wrote that….That is something for which  I have been the principal proponent for a long time.”
Al Gore in a Time Interview, on the EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT (EITC). Now, this is interesting, since the EITC became law in 1975, a year BEFORE Gore was elected to Congress.

during a visit to a New Hampshire high school on November 30, 1999………
“I called for a congressional investigation and a hearing. I looked around the country for other sites like that. I found a little place in upstate New York called Love Canal.

Gore lost because the SC decided to deny him a recount of the contested votes in Florida.

The kool-aid is really getting spiked around here lately……..

In the first full study of Florida’s ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled “undervotes” — ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through — to be counted.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html

The difference was that the media did repeat President Clinton’s message exactly like he and his advisors wanted it to be repeated.

Unlike that wooden nerdy guy who acted all smart.

I have to disagree with this. Sure, liberal Democrats disagreed with Clinton on some of his centrist, pro-business views, and were angry at him for tainting the party with scandal. But, he was always personally popular, leaving office with a 70% approval rating. The only time GWB had that high a rating was after 9/11. He tanked after Katrina, and has been hovering in the 30’s ever since. Perhaps a more apt comparison is Reagan, who was popular with his own party, but polarizing with everyone else.

Gore lost because the SC decided to deny him a recount of the contested votes in Florida. His campaign was flawed- he should have campaigned with Clinton, established better relations with the press, and concentrated on the many positive aspects of the Clinton years.

Thanks for posting this, Michael – it’s an incredibly important issue.

The flip side of that coin was the free pass Bush got. Questions that needed to be asked never were, puff pieces abounded, and the ‘who would you rather drink with’ set-up seemed the only important decision the media felt the country needed to ponder.

I used to think journalists wrote as they thought there readers wanted to read, but the last six years has put paid to this. As the Knight Ridder reporters showed, it wasn’t hard to find the holes in the administrations case for war, but the vast majority of our most senior correspondents chose, or were told, to look the other way.

Today, there are scant signs that this has changed. Thank God for the internet.