Straw-Men
Aired 8/14/06 Straw-Men 
There were some big items in the news this week so it wasn't easy to decide to cover something that was mostly glossed over. But one of my goals is to prod listeners to examine more critically what is sent to them by the media and this one was to much of a breach of journalistic ethics to let go by. Journalists, particularly Anchors, aren't supposed to be interjecting biased argument into the discussion, but to do so and then disguize it as 'some people say' when it turns out that there are no 'some people' saying that at all is truly outrageous.
Perhaps the greatest disappointment looking at the state of current broadcast journalism, particularly cable news, is that the line between pundit, commentator, and journalist has been smeared. The cable networks have made stars of commentators who act like pundits and then expect their journalists to behave likewise so as to not contradict the wisdom of the stars.
Update: Chuck Roberts had Ned Lamont on the show and said the following:
"You know, I owe you an apology. Last week, I led into an interview with a guest analyst and really botched the set-up. The guest had wanted to discuss the Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman statements suggesting that terror groups — Al Qaeda type, to use Cheney’s words — would be buoyed by your win, but I posed it badly, stupidly ad-libbing about "some saying Lamont is the Al-Qaeda candidate." No one, in fact, used that construction. Anyway, I wanted to correct the record, and I’m glad we had this chance to do it. Now, let’s get to the insinuations that were lobbed…"
It seemed like a genuinely heartfelt apology, but it does point out part of the underlying problem, and that is turning the anchors and reporters into being subservient to the analyst and commentator. Roberts was there to 'set up' the pre-arranged questions that the guest already said he wanted to talk about.
It reminded me of a CNBC TV interview with Ann Coulter and a liberal commentator. The host gave Ann both first and last comments (which meant she had one more), agreed with her comments, always put her on top in the split screens, and then cut away to stock war footage when the token liberal commentator started speaking. I had expected such tactics from FOX, but they now seem common across cable news. Is that because CNBC has suddenly gone neocon? I think it was more because Coulter was the 'celebrity' and they didn't want to not be able to book her in the future.
There were some big items in the news this week so it wasn't easy to decide to cover something that was mostly glossed over. But one of my goals is to prod listeners to examine more critically what is sent to them by the media and this one was to much of a breach of journalistic ethics to let go by. Journalists, particularly Anchors, aren't supposed to be interjecting biased argument into the discussion, but to do so and then disguize it as 'some people say' when it turns out that there are no 'some people' saying that at all is truly outrageous.
Perhaps the greatest disappointment looking at the state of current broadcast journalism, particularly cable news, is that the line between pundit, commentator, and journalist has been smeared. The cable networks have made stars of commentators who act like pundits and then expect their journalists to behave likewise so as to not contradict the wisdom of the stars.
Update: Chuck Roberts had Ned Lamont on the show and said the following:
"You know, I owe you an apology. Last week, I led into an interview with a guest analyst and really botched the set-up. The guest had wanted to discuss the Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman statements suggesting that terror groups — Al Qaeda type, to use Cheney’s words — would be buoyed by your win, but I posed it badly, stupidly ad-libbing about "some saying Lamont is the Al-Qaeda candidate." No one, in fact, used that construction. Anyway, I wanted to correct the record, and I’m glad we had this chance to do it. Now, let’s get to the insinuations that were lobbed…"
It seemed like a genuinely heartfelt apology, but it does point out part of the underlying problem, and that is turning the anchors and reporters into being subservient to the analyst and commentator. Roberts was there to 'set up' the pre-arranged questions that the guest already said he wanted to talk about.
It reminded me of a CNBC TV interview with Ann Coulter and a liberal commentator. The host gave Ann both first and last comments (which meant she had one more), agreed with her comments, always put her on top in the split screens, and then cut away to stock war footage when the token liberal commentator started speaking. I had expected such tactics from FOX, but they now seem common across cable news. Is that because CNBC has suddenly gone neocon? I think it was more because Coulter was the 'celebrity' and they didn't want to not be able to book her in the future.
posted by Daniel Raymond at 7:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home