Rethinking the opposition response

July 27th, 2011

President Obama went on national television Monday night to address the American people about the looming default crisis in Washington. This was immediately — and automatically — followed by the “opposition response” from Representative John Boehner, the Speaker of the House. As I noted via Twitter following the events, the idea of an opposition response is actually just a form of lazy, “he said, she said” journalism, and we need to start thinking about the validity and consequences of such a format.

A little history first. The idea of putting an political party opposition leader on the same stage with a sitting President all began in 1966 with Lyndon Johnson’s State of the Union address. Bear in mind that the State of the Union annual message is mandated by the Constitution and has been practiced, in one form or another, since the time of George Washington. The opposition response, however, is an invention of the television networks, who first gave time to Everett Dirksen and Gerald Ford to respond to Johnson in 1966. It became an official part of the networks’ coverage by 1976. This makes the opposition response entirely artificial, but the networks like it, and one has to ask themselves why.

The practice has now evolved to include virtually any Presidential speech, so the self-serving national press — in the form of the networks, broadcast and cable — is now dictating to the electorate how politics is to be perceived, and that is apparently to be in Jay Rosen’s “he said, she said” model. Sufficient for analysis is an opposition party response, for, after all, we are a divided people with no single leader in Washington. Nobody’s right. Nobody’s wrong. Every position is equally valid. How absurd.

Consider these thoughts from Jay in his seminal essay, He Said, She Said Journalism: Lame Formula in the Land of the Active User:

Any good blogger, competing journalist or alert press critic can spot and publicize false balance and the lame acceptance of fact-free spin. Do users really want to be left helpless in sorting out who’s faking it more? The he said, she said form says they do, but I say decline has set in.

…Quick definition: “He said, she said” journalism means…

• There’s a public dispute.
• The dispute makes news.
• No real attempt is made to assess clashing truth claims in the story, even though they are in some sense the reason for the story. (Under the “conflict makes news” test.)
• The means for assessment do exist, so it’s possible to exert a factual check on some of the claims, but for whatever reason the report declines to make use of them.
• The symmetry of two sides making opposite claims puts the reporter in the middle between polarized extremes.

…Like the “straight down the middle” impulse…, he said, she said is not so much a truth-telling strategy as refuge-seeking behavior that fits well into newsroom production demands. “Taking a pass” on the tougher calls (like who’s blowing more smoke) is economical. It’s seen as risk-reduction, as well, because the account declines to explicitly endorse or actively mistrust any claim that is made in the account.

Rosen goes on to say that the practice is in decline, because journalists are beginning to see that practices like fact-checking are a higher standard. I couldn’t agree more.

I think this “he said, she said” model is at the very heart of what’s wrong with American politics today, because its players are gifted (and trained) to speak out of both sides of their mouths, leaving the decision-making up to so-called experts who are actually a part of the insider culture in the first place.

I think the thing about this that gets to me most is the automatic assumption by both parties that anything a sitting President wants to say to the public carries with it a response from the opposing political party. It strikes me as contrived and accommodating at a time when we all should be questioning everything, because what we have simply isn’t working.

Don’t get me wrong. I fully support the idea of the opposition party scheduling a response, but it is the networks’ decision as to whether such a response warrants live coverage. We need to think about the consequences of that before we automatically assume the answer is always yes.

Posted in Journalism, Politics | No Comments » |

“Hulu Handcuff:” a signal to broadcasting and cable?

January 19th, 2011

The “Hulu Handcuff” condition that was a part of the government’s approval of the Comcast-NBC merger this week is an important and insightful look into the mind of not only the Genachowski FCC but also what the Obama administration views as important downstream. If you thought that the status quo has defenders in the White House, you should probably think again, and that has meaning for any kind of legacy media.

The so-called Hulu Handcuff blocks Comcast from any decision-making or influence on the future of Hulu. NBC would still be allowed some participation, but the government sees Comcast as a potential threat to the viability of Hulu and wants assurances that Hulu will be protected. The Justice Department explained in court filings:

“Comcast has an incentive to prevent Hulu from becoming an even more attractive avenue for viewing video programming because Hulu would then exert increased competitive pressure on Comcast’s cable business. If the proposed transaction were to be consummated without conditions, (Comcast) would hold seats on Hulu’s board of directors and could exercise their voting and other governance rights to compromise strategic and competitive initiatives Hulu may wish to pursue.”

In an FCC press release, commissioners wrote that Comcast-NBCU will be required to take affirmative steps to foster competition in the video marketplace in addition to backing away from Hulu.

…Comcast-NBCU will increase local news coverage to viewers; expand children’s programming; enhance the diversity of programming available to Spanish-speaking viewers; offer broadband services to low-income Americans at
reduced monthly prices; and provide high-speed broadband to schools, libraries and underserved communities, among other public benefits…

…Ensuring Reasonable Access to Comcast-NBCU Programming for Multichannel Distribution…

…Protecting the Development of Online Competition…

What’s interesting to me here is the message this action telegraphs to the whole “video transmission” industry, and it’s pretty huge: “Don’t mess with unbundled video distribution via the Web.” Reading between the lines can’t make anybody in the licensed spectrum world feel all warm and fuzzy inside, because the government’s priority should be seen as online and not over-the-air, although that may seem like splitting mobile broadband hairs.

These conditions are set for at least seven years, seven crucial years in the development of the online video marketplace. Monetizing all that content on behalf of rights owners is something that’s still very mushy and in need of serious leadership. It’s the innovator’s dilemma that Clayton Christensen (keynoter at the upcoming Borrell Conference in March) talks about. Broadcasters want and need to protect their core competency while disruptive forces are demanding a different model. This week’s action by the Justice Department and the FCC sends a clear signal as to which area has Washington’s ear.

Posted in Broadcasting, hulu, Politics, Video | 1 Comment » |

License they mean when they cry liberty

January 9th, 2011

John Milton

It’s raining here in Dallas this morning, and pensive is my mood. I’m locked in thoughts ranging from my age to political assassinations to the future that awaits my children. The title of this post is a famous line from the 17th Century John Milton (Paradise Lost) poem, I Did but Prompt. It’s one of the most fascinating, pre-American statements, and it says a lot about human nature. “License they mean when they cry liberty” has been with me for decades, and it never fails to influence my thinking when I hear people spouting about that most important American word “liberty.”

Milton’s poem is about the uselessness of preaching the truth of freedom to a class of people who are, frankly, uninterested, because it will impact their place in life. “…all this waste of wealth,” he writes, “and loss of blood.” He refers to the Biblical wisdom of not “casting your pearls before swine,” an admonishment not to waste your time with people who refuse to listen, people whose own contempt for truth leads them astray.

And yet, as Milton suggests, these people are often loudly proclaiming their belief in liberty, often defending it with war and violence. Milton, however, sees through this and proclaims that what they’re really defending is “license,” a much different concept than that of liberty.

“For who loves that (liberty),” he notes, “must first be wise and good.”

I think this is being played out before us today in nearly every corner of our culture. Nobody wants the truth inherent in liberty, because liberty requires responsibility. We want license, the “freedom” to do what we want at all times. Milton wisely notes that there’s a HUGE difference between the two, and I think we need to talk about this.

The First Amendment, for example, is a requisite cornerstone of liberty, because the courage to tell the truth must be protected. However, when it’s used to protect license, it’s polluted and turned on its head, and that’s a problem. I think the Founding Fathers knew that liberty demands sacrifice (Milton’s view), but we don’t hear much about that today. The emphasis on truth is the differentiator, which is why I am obligated to support everything about WikiLeaks and at the same time curse the political discourse of today, like that which played at least some role in the murderous atrocity in Tucson yesterday. The former seeks truth, but the latter seeks self gain.

License they mean when they cry liberty.

Posted in Culture, Philosophy, Politics, Quotes | 1 Comment » |

Social media as “shop talk”

January 1st, 2011

I went to my local Verizon store New Year’s Eve to check out the Motorola Droid Pro, which I plan to purchase. It was also time to investigate my family account for discounts and and upgrades. We were the only customers present, something that’s very unusual, so I had the attention of all three clerks. They were temporarily out of Droid Pros, but said they could get one and that I could come back today, New Year’s Day.

“You’re open?” I asked.

“Yeah,” a nice young man replied.

“What hours do you have to work?” I probed.

“Well, they’ve sort of messed with us,” he continued, “because we were supposed to be open from 10-6. They just notified us that we’re working until 8 o’clock.”

Eyes rolled, and I lamented the extra two hours with them, but in the back of my mind, I couldn’t help think that, sooner or later, this kind of corporate behavior is going to have to end. It cannot exist in a hyperconnected universe, because word travels fast. We’ll go through a season of people getting fired, because they complained about this or that on Facebook, but in the end, who will want to work for a company with such practices? It certainly won’t be the best and brightest. Our ability to talk to each other — to complain to each other and find solutions — is what’s really new about today. I suspect we’ll need to strengthen “shop talk” labor laws to include social media in order to eventually protect people from sharing complaints that normally would have been kept at home.

This points to what people like Umair Haque and John Hagel preach: that best business practices for the 21st Century are very different than those of the Industrial Age. When profit is the fundamental raison d’être, then anything goes in the name of profit. Too bad, employee. You want a job, you’ll do anything and everything I tell you to do, and you won’t complain. But pure profit can no longer be the essential driver of business in a hyperconnected universe. It has to be about creating and maintaining value. If you stand any chance of a quality labor force, you simply must treat people differently, and not just your customers. The smart business person of today is beginning to see that. It’s not all about salary; it’s very much about working conditions. There are big corporations whose CEOs are quite adept at gutting working conditions in the name of profit. They are rewarded for so doing, because that’s how they’re graded by investors. They don’t give a crap about brain drain, because that’s not a part of their compensation, so who cares if employees must endure ungodly hours or manage their own benefits? A manager who practices this for long will soon find herself staring at an empty room where a factory used to be.

This will be their undoing, because what used to be called “shop talk” is now being spread far and wide. It’s only going to get worse for those who worship the bottom line at the expense of human beings.

I love Verizon and have been a faithful customer of theirs for a very long time, but this event has given me pause. What kind of business do you think they’ll do in those extra two hours…on New Year’s Day? What will they have accomplished except piss off their labor force?

Posted in Culture, Economy, Legal, Politics | 1 Comment » |

What makes us so uncomfortable about Wikileaks?

December 24th, 2010

In a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton in 1887, British historian and moralist Lord Acton said these famous words: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” This utterance of human nature can be found throughout history, regardless of the politics or culture involved. There’s something about being in charge that causes those in charge to need more.

I like to write about human nature, because it’s one thing that never changes. Whether you believe in God or not, the evidence is pretty clear that man wants to be his own god. That’s why we need an internal governor to live with each other and get along. Either that, or an external governor will rule us, although another group feels we can educate ourselves to a better place. I’m unconvinced but willing to give it a shot.

Wikileaks is arguably the biggest cultural event so far of the 21st Century, and while others are debating the many issues associated with it, I want to talk about culture and human nature. Wikileaks makes everybody uncomfortable, but why? I can think of at least ten reasons.

Before I go there, however, a little review is in order for those unfamiliar with my work and philosophy. The hyperconnected Web is pulling us into an eonic cultural shift, from modernism, with its hierarchies, to postmodernism, with its participatory nature. What exactly we’ll end up with is unknown, but it won’t be what we’ve had. If you don’t like “postmodernism,” try post-colonialism, for the world of hierachies fits very well into the colonialist mindset of “the masses NEED the elite.” In a hyperconnected universe, this isn’t necessarily true, and so we have a cultural conflict that some have described as a “war.” I don’t think it’s a war; it’s just the passing of the times. And just as modernism didn’t “replace” the faith of its predecessor, postmodernism won’t entirely replace modernism either. Change, however, brings discomfort, and that’s the biggest problem with Wikileaks.

So here are ten things that make us uncomfortable about Wikileaks:

1. We can’t trust authority. Modernism needs that trust in order to function. It’s a world of oaths and promises, which are problematic in a trust-less culture. Wikileaks clearly shows that the secret world of diplomacy is very different than the one that we’ve been led to believe exists. This lack of trust is pandemic in our culture today, which is one of the reasons we’re looking to each other instead of “up” to culture’s leadership.
2. Leadership lies to us. This directly impacts trust, but there’s an even bigger issue. If we can’t trust our leadership to tell us the truth in the bigger matters of life, how can we believe they’ll tell us the truth in the mundane? “He who is faithul in little will be faithful in much,” but the opposite is also true. Nobody likes to be lied to.
3. We’re just pawns. We go through our lives knowing but not admitting that we’re really powerless, and we search for power everywhere. The demonstration of how our government routinely pulls the wool over our eyes or hides things from us screams of our powerlessness, and we feel used. That makes us uncomfortable.
4. Powerlessness leads to fear, and that threatens the basic concept that we’re safe. Wikileaks makes us feel we’re unsafe, because the facade of control presented by our government is really a house of cards, according to what we’re learning. We don’t like how that feels.
5. That leads to the next thing that makes us feel uncomfortable about Wikileaks: we wonder what’s going to happen to us? Fear seeps into our lives in ways we’re unprepared for, and this is complicated by what appears to be the collusion of the press in keeping us “down here.” The sources that the press quotes, after all, are the government. They lie, and the press passes it along. Nobody has prepared us for this, and we’re frightened.
6. We’re disillusioned, because we thought that our interests were “the country’s” interests. Clearly they are not. To the extent that big business and the banks represent “our country,” you could say that foreign affairs are about us, but Wikileaks is showing us that in all the ways that matter, our government is interested in what happens to the haves, not us.
7. We are not the “government of the people” that we were taught in elementary school. We are, instead, a government of the elite, who play us and other citizens of the world through secret dealings with other elites, regardless of their affiliation, but always to the end that the rich get richer.
8. Our institutions are not infallible. We go through our lives in the hope and belief that those in charge work on our behalf, but Wikileaks shows us that they work on behalf of themselves. This, we discover, includes every institution, and this disillusionment makes us feel uncomfortable. All are run by humans, and humans with power…”
9. The real government isn’t the one we see. The shadow government revealed by Wikileaks is really in charge, and they answer to no one but themselves. Its power is derived by keeping the truth to themselves, so what appears to us to be black can, in reality, be white. We can handle the truth, but it’s kept from us in the name of “need to know.” This is what hyperconnectivity disrupts so very well.
10. Finally, we’re learning that our global reputation is earned. All along, we’ve thought that “they” were nuts, and we’ve never quite been able to understand why “they” don’t like us. Well, hello! Those in charge here lie to “them,” and at least some of “them” know it. This makes us super uncomfortable, because we suddenly realize that anger over such can cost us lives in the name of war.

Looking ahead, Wikileaks could very well be the major catalyst in the cultural transformation that’s been brewing since the 60s. Those in charge don’t like it, because the fatted calf being whacked here belongs to them. I genuinely like the forced transparency that this has caused, because, like many of my contemporaries, I’m just sick of all the bullshit. Yes, we have it good in this country, but that’s because we have a Constitution written by some terribly wise people with funny wigs, and the extent of our discontent lies with how far we’ve drifted from that document. If this helps us get back to that, then I say that’s a good thing.

I also think this leads to an opportunity to shine for those intellectuals who believe so much in education. If we truly want to govern ourselves, we’re going to need a boatload of information upon which to base our decisions. That, too, seems like a good thing to me.

The prophets of the 60s spoke of all of this, and perhaps that’s what makes some of us most uncomfortable.

Buffalo Springfield: “There’s something happening here. What it is ain’t exactly clear.”

And, of course, Dylan:

“Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won’t come again
And don’t speak too soon
For the wheel’s still in spin
And there’s no tellin’ who that it’s naming.’
For the loser now will be later to win
And the times they are a-changin’.”

Posted in Culture, Disruptions, Education, Politics, Postmodernism | 2 Comments » |

Why Fox can’t just admit it

September 26th, 2010

Slate has published a wonderful deconstruction of the lawsuit by Fox News to stop Missouri’s Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate, Robin Carnahan, from using Fox file footage in her ads. Fox argues that her use of the footage hurts the reputation of its news business for accuracy and objectivity. The problem is that Carnahan’s opponent also uses Fox News footage, but the Republican isn’t being sued.

I read this stuff and wonder again why Fox just doesn’t admit that theirs is a network that supports Republicans and issues of the right. That wonder doesn’t last long, because the reason is a familiar one (this was our view at CBN): Fox takes the position that the established press is biased and they are fair and balanced. To prove this proposition, Fox News believes that by simply including the point-of-view of the right, they’re providing “we report, you decide.” It may seem like “bias” to others, the thinking goes, because the average citizen is used to only hearing one side — the liberal side.

This is all well and good (and logical) until something like this lawsuit happens. Suddenly, the BS of it all is revealed, but Fox cannot risk simply admitting its bias, because to do so would disprove their marketing position. How? If Fox admits bias, then others can claim the middle ground. If Fox would admit a position of extreme on the right, it would be “balanced” by extremes on the left, and the traditional press could then claim the center. Fox cannot allow this to happen.

There’s also the matter of audience expectations. Your audience can’t “fight” on behalf of your position, if you admit it’s otherwise.

I don’t think there’s any question about what’s happening with Fox, but I don’t think you’ll ever hear anybody from Fox News admit it.

Posted in Ethics, Journalism, Networks, Politics | 1 Comment » |

The working class: a ticking time bomb

September 4th, 2010

Whenever Labor Day rolls around, I think of my dad. He passed away in 1988, and like most sons, I discovered while growing older that I’m a chip off the old block. Or, as the other old saying goes, the apple never falls very far from the tree. Sometimes I wish it wasn’t so (I’ve got his ears), but mostly, I’m just proud.

My dad was VERY vocal about his disdain for Republicans. “Silk stockings” is the term I heard. This was a reference to the dandy gentlemen of a former age, those who lorded over the have-nots of the culture. Like so many others after World War II, my dad was a factory-worker, a man who operated a machine of the industrial age in order to support his family. I’ve written before about how he used to stand on his feet, cutting boards with a router eight hours-a-day for Bergsma Brothers furniture. He cut the same piece, day-after-day as a part of a furniture assembly line. He worked hard and never complained.

He hated Dwight Eisenhower in the 50s, and election night was filled with angry tirades against the man who used to be his “commander” during the war. My dad was a staunch Democrat — a labor supporter — and we rejoiced when John Kennedy was elected in 1960. Back then, we had a middle class. He worked his ass off to push us there.

Today, though, we have the haves and the have-nots and nothing in between. Not only that, but the gap between the two is getting wider. A column in stltoday.com — in labor-friendly St. Louis — caught my attention today, as I’m thinking about the Labor Day holiday, my dad’s holiday. Here’s what hit me:

Today, the Tax Policy Center, a non-partisan arm of the Brookings Institution, projects that in 2011 that the top 1 percent of all wage earners will take home 18 percent of all income. The top tenth of that 1 percent will take home 8.2 percent all by itself.

Between 1979 and 2007 (before the Big Recession) the average after-tax income of the top 1 percent of the population nearly quadrupled, from $347,000 to over $1.3 million.

The columnist quotes a study by the Institute for Policy Studies (Executive Excess) that makes me wince:

“American workers … are taking home less in real weekly wages than they took home in the 1970s. Back in those years, precious few top executives made over 30 times what their workers made. In 2009, we calculate … CEOs of major U.S. corporations averaged 263 times the average compensation of American workers.”

Earlier this week, my stepdaughter surprised me when she asked what Labor Day was all about. Apparently, they don’t teach this in school anymore, and that’s another surprise. Labor Day was always my dad’s favorite holiday, because he knew that it’s all about the working people of our country — the people that the Silk Stockings of the land manipulate and take for granted today, as they go about making themselves even richer. This simply cannot go on, and when it blows up in everybody’s face, it’s going to be violent and ugly.

This widening gap between the haves and the have-nots is a ticking time bomb, and when it goes off, it’ll make the current disruptions of technology seem mild in comparison. I don’t think anybody is prepared for it, least of all our government.

Labor Day 2010. Discontent disguised as peace.

Posted in Culture, Economy, Politics | No Comments » |

We don’t need no stinking regulation

May 1st, 2010

No where is personal branding more important than in the world of politics, which is why “making a name for yourself” is job one in government, if one wishes to advance. Washington is filled with these folks, and there’s nothing like a new administration to move the name-making rock. Enter Federal Trade Commission Chairman Jon Leibowitz.

Leibowitz is President Obama’s top consumer protection guy, a great position from which to take on causes and make a name for yourself. Leibowitz’s cause is online targeted advertising, and I think that makes him a very dangerous fellow. I don’t wish to beat the dead horse of privacy here, because this crusade isn’t about that. It’s about chest beating and helping those up for re-election to be able to say to constituents back home that they’re “protecting” their privacy. Bullshit.

The ignorance with which this crucially important matter is being bandied about in Washington is second only to the pathetic and transparent nature of the effort to “protect” privacy in the first place.

In a Business Week article this week (The FTC Takes On Targeted Web Ads), Leibowitz’s demagoguery on behalf of us poor, helpless consumers is evident, because the self-policing of the industry isn’t working.

But Leibowitz hints that he’s growing impatient with marketers’ efforts. “It’s not clear that they’re moving far enough or fast enough, even though they’re making some progress,” Leibowitz says. He supports the controversial approach of making more of the targeted ads on the Internet “opt-in”—meaning they would require consent from Web users before collecting data—and is in talks with members of Congress intent on drafting legislation for online ads.

One of those members of Congress is Virginia Democratic Congressman Rick Boucher, who plans on introducing a bill “by September” that would force some forms of opt-in measures on advertisers.

“My overall purpose is not to interfere with the legitimate practice of people who are doing targeted advertising,” Boucher says. “My goal is to try to create a greater sense of confidence on the part of consumers.”

Doublespeak and more BS. The purpose is self-promotion. The Business Week article fails to mention that Boucher is up for re-election in November in a race the GOP has targeted for special attention. And while Boucher has hinted that his bill might expand beyond online targeting, I’ll believe that when I see it. The Web is just too convenient and visible a target for politicians to resist.

What do banks do with your data? They sell it. Where does all that in-store data from your, say, Kroger card go, and who does what with it? 95% of what shows up in my snail mailbox is unwanted. Where does it come from and how do they know think I’m interested? As a culture, we may complain about all that, but everybody just accepts that this is advertising in America.

But the online world is a mystery. It’s the machines taking over. Oooooo. Be scared, everybody. Be very scared.

Look, I’m not saying there haven’t been or isn’t mischief in the business world over targeting, and I’m not even opposed (necessarily) to oversight. But opting-in to accept unwanted messages? As Doc Searls would say, there’s no market for that, and it would be a significant setback not only for commerce but all of publishing. Americans are sick of being bombarded by unwanted messages, but at least with targeting, they stand a chance of those messages being relevant.

And here’s the thing. What these politicians are afraid of is cookies on our computers. Oh, those evil cookies! But eliminating cookies doesn’t alter the ability to target based on behavior, because when a server (any server) connects with a browser, it records the IP address of that browser. It’s not as sophisticated, but the point is that restricting cookies doesn’t do jack shit anyway.

And finally, I’ve been writing about our cultural shift for nearly ten years. Modernism, with it’s elitist management of everything on behalf of the poor, ignorant and helpless masses, is being challenged by people revolting against institutional authority. Technology is helping it, but the shift began a half century ago, and it’s not going to go away. This smacks of big daddy government stepping in where nobody needs them to step in, at least not in such an unreasonable and self-serving fashion. The institution of government is just one that’s under attack by the people formerly known as the nameless, faceless “consumers.”

If Mr. Leibowitz wants to explore privacy, then let it be across-the-board, so that every interest group — including political operatives, who are better at “targeting” than anybody — can have their say in the matter. Then we’ll see how far it gets.

And then there’s Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook…

Posted in Advertising, Culture, Politics | 1 Comment » |

That troublesome Tea Party

March 30th, 2010

You’re the weekend reporter for a small market, and the Tea Partiers have come to town for a rally. What do you do? You know squat about the group. They’re an oddball mix with misspelled signs, and they seem to drag along an illiterate and, well, ignorant crowd with them. Is that the story? Is the combination of religious zealots and gun-toters a threat to America? Is that the story? They talk like right wing GOPers. Is that the story? They say they’re a serious political movement in the country. Is that the story?

Let’s begin by saying that political animals know that you don’t know anything about them and their cause, so they use weekends to get their point-of-view across. So take the press release, but ask smart questions. What questions, you ask? Here’s a great interview with a guy who’s been covering the Tea Party for the Washington Independent since its inception.

David Weigel offers two wrong ways to look at the events:

“The only thing I try not to do is what I call “point and laugh” coverage,” Weigel tells Bob Garfield, “where you find a tea party group doing something kind of crazy and make fun of that and move on.” The second way reporters mischaracterize the movement, according to Weigel, is “taking a press release from one of these tea party groups and reporting that this was an authentic American uprising that informs our understanding of why Barack Obama’s not very popular right now.”

The simple answer is that the economy’s bad. It’s not that the self-selected conservative protestor showing up somewhere is the voice of the independents. They’re neither freaks nor Norman Rockwell representations of every American.

This is a tough assignment for any reporter, but for the green weekender, it poses lots of problems. Better to bone up on it now, because we’re going to be hearing a lot from this group in the months ahead.

Posted in Politics | No Comments » |

Back to the future: the drift to point-of-view

November 16th, 2009

Lou Dobbs quit CNN last week. Various accounts say it was “abrupt” and that Dobbs simply refused to tone down his rhetoric, something CNN couldn’t abide. He’s scheduled to appear tonight with Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly, where he plans to talk about the resignation.

As the press tries to figure this out, many stories are surfacing. Dobbs is running for the U.S. Senate. He wants to be President. Dobbs is joining Fox News, where his point-of-view would be welcomed.

Also interesting are the reports about how the forced move by CNN is a part of its effort to secure the “high ground” niche in the news game, with MSNBC owning the left and Fox News owning the right. CNN figures it can be the unbiased bunch. Good luck with that.

Viewers want their newscasters and organizations to be unbiased, but they don’t believe they are, and this poses a very problematic situation for the marketers of those programs. The best anybody can do is try to be fair and accurate, but playing around with any sort of “high ground” is a very dangerous proposition. Those who favor Fox, for example, will view any attempts by CNN to “balance” a story as evidence of liberal bias. Contrariwise, those who favor MSNBC will view opposite attempts by CNN as evidence of conservative bias. The problem with attempts to fence sit, is that there is no fence in the minds of people, no identifiable middle ground that people accept as the place where varying opinions reside. As Jay Rosen has brilliantly concluded, the idea that truth lies between two points-of-view is the great illusion of the professional press, and the people formerly known as the audience intuitively know this.

The origins of objectivity in the professional press are so tied to advertising that it’s impossible to disconnect the two. As Christopher Lasch wrote in his seminal essay “The Lost Art of Political Argument,” the need to create a sterile environment in which to sell advertising fit beautifully with Walter Lippmann’s social engineering views of an elite press, and so was born the professional journalist with his or her “objective” reporting.

This has produced a considerable backlash, and now we have an unmistakable drift to point-of-view journalism that is just beginning. At the grassroots level – and at the pinnacle of big media – we’re seeing more and more argument entering into reporting, and this is a welcome change from the dishonest drumbeat of “we’re objective.”

So what will happen with CNN? Even if it enjoys a reputation among observers as being “independent,” I’m not sure that will resonate with a public that is jaded by the media’s lust for celebrity, gotcha, and bandwagon journalism.

With regards to Mr. Dobbs, there is also the very real trend of personal branding that cannot be denied. People – especially young people – don’t watch networks; they follow people, and one could easily make the case that the brand of Lou Dobbs is, at least in some ways, more valuable than the brand of CNN.

We shall see.

Posted in Culture, Journalism, Politics, Postmodernism | 1 Comment » |