I don't know what liberal means in today's parlance.
I think the big fight in politics today is between corporatists and noncorporatists. Many corporatists are crooks and they are on both sides of the aisle.
I see myself and other people who are active in Dem Party politics as being progressive reformers more than liberals. Although many are liberals as well.
Howard Dean started it off and he's a pragmatic moderate. He just believes those in goverment should not be crooks, that we should be true to the constitution and its amendments and that good government only happens when ordinary people get involved and push. We just happen to be pushing from the inside but that could change depending on what happens.
I'm a partisan, one look at my blog and everyone knows that. I'm much more concerned with sites that claim they are "neutral" and "balanced." We all know by now how easy a slant gets into the mix, often via shading, covering certain things and neglecting to cover others. Like reporting on a candidate forum where one guy accuses the other guy of wanting to cut the throats of our troops and the report doesn't even mention that point.
I very much appreciate your perspective, Barb. And I agree with you that there's a struggle between what you call corporatist and non-corporatist. Another way to put it is establishment versus anti-establishment. In the old days...labor versus capital. 
In other words, its a historic struggle, and I appreciate seeing it emerge within the Democratic party.
As to bias, and how it shows in what reporters choose to cover, or not, I agree with you about that also. The problem, though, is interpreting what that reporter's bias is...that isn't always an easy thing to do. If there is underlying bias in this case (which I'm not saying there is) I think what it is could be argued from either direction. I've been mulling this over tonight, pretending I was a campaign person--would I or would I not have wanted the episode in question reported? I don't think its an easy call actually.
Can't resist. Does Leaving out information which equals bias which equals imbalanced perspective count in the coverage of Mr. Obama?
Not a shred of snark or hint in that question. I'm just curious in ya'll's perspective on this.
Put another way, when the tides run so strong in one direction, is it even POSSIBLE to report in a balanced manner without looking like a crank out to spoil the party?
Listened to a fascinating discussion about this on POTUS not long ago. The upshot: it's new territory and no one is really clear.
Oh! And in case anyone is thinking I'm thinking nonsense like Rev. Wright, try this as a litmus.
I'm thinking about the SC primary, when the Obama folk wildly fanned the fans on the race issue and the only, ONLY national reporter who dared even touch it was the late Tim Russert, who elicited a promise from BO himself to stop doing it during that debate while he waived the four pages of e-mails from the Obama camp as evidence.
I got (some of) the same e-mails, and they were, frankly, outrageous. If we recall, it all landed on Bill Clinton's head.
How would you have approached that? Is it reportable to you? That a black man running for President, and gave a speech on race, was in fact having his folk dealing from the bottom of the deck an issue the country should know? If yes, why. If no, same question.
This is one of those really, really hard gut check moments in the business. If the inner emotional bias is to support Obama by the reporter, is even a 10% hesitancy proper and excusable?
Is, as was pointed out here, the crime of omission as bad as the crime of skewed focus, does that rule not apply when popularity and such is so fevered?
Hard stuff.
Yes, it does apply when it comes to Obama. If you recall, we had plenty of heated discussions about Obama and Clinton right here on m-pyre. The pressure to be an Obama-ite was pretty strong until he became the nominee.
I think a good example of someone reporting on a topic even when she knew it could damage the person she wanted to win was the blogger who reported the bitter comment by Obama. That may go down as the most damaging bit of the entire campaign for him. When you read the context of his statement, its not near as bad as its made to be. But I still go back and forth on it. It's got legs, for sure.
Obama, for all that he supposedly rides above the fray, plays politics like anybody else. Did you read the New Yorker article about him, the one attached to that cover that was so outrageous? If not, check it out. He's not some neophyte who stumbled into this game. In the primary, both race and gender were played by both sides. The question is how much of all that was initiated from within the campaigns.
I think it's pretty hilarious that Heath is moaning and wailing about this. It's true that, ten years ago, this *enormous* mistake on Tinsley's part probably would have gone completely unnoticed, maybe costing him 10% of the votes of the people that were actually at that forum instead of 10% of the entire district. That's not really the point though.
The point is that, despite our newfound ability to report and disseminate things like this, the major news outlets usually refuse to report them. I hate to sound like one of the right wing wackjobs that pretends that the MSM is liberal, but how many major mistakes has McCain made in his speeches and what amount of time has the MSM spent talking about it?
If Obama didn't know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite, or thought Iraq had a border with Pakistan, would the media really have stayed mum on it (I honestly don't know, but I kind of doubt it.)
In my opinion the media can see just as clearly as most of the rest of us that Obama is a much better candidate than McCain, and if they were to report McCain's major mistakes the campaign would be effectively over by September. They're boosting McCain up not because they love him or want him to win, they just want to make the story last longer.
The thing that really drove me crazy yesterday was that the media had talking head analysis on whether or not Obama was "presumptuous" for giving a speech that wasn't really even on policy in Berlin, they don't bat an eye when McCain starts trying to set current foreign policy on the Georgian-Russian conflict. What? Even the Bush administration was kind of like "dude, you're just a Senator, leave the decisions to the executive."
Ah! The SF blogger! Waaaaay better example than mine by a factor of a jillion.
Er, Dan. What is this MSM "mum" on the McCain gaffe you speak?! You can't be serious.
That thing was e-v-e-r-y-w-h-e-r-e in the MSM!
Your not proposing that it was a blogger phenom like Marjorie's SF example, are you?
No offense meant, but whenever I see the wording, "no one in the MSM..." in a blog there's azlways a chuckle for me coming.
Here's my guess...and another gut check question. If in fact, it was reported in the MSM widely (which it was), the fundamental question is; was it reported "enough" for you, and if no, why not? Second, how long is a news org abligated to stay on a story like that during a dynamic news cycle when things are popping daily?
Isn't there a point where the MSM literally hands it off to blogs, columnists, etc. to color in the meaning? I'd say bloggers did a pretty decent job of that.
If the clue is in your paragraph about how the MSM can "see" how Obama is the better candidate, I'd ask you to think long and very hard about that approach, because that is a razor sharp double edged knife.
What happens if the MSM en masse, as you propose, decides at some point that they "see" someone you do not support as the better choice?
Respecting readers/viewers/listerners, etcd. means just laying it out there and YOU decide. You get this, but it bears stating.
many posts in history here I stated a preference for the way the brits and others approach this. The cards are on the table. You pick up the conservative rag, you know what you're gonna get. Same for opposite.
In that regard...and back to the original point about Heath et al...that is in fact what i like about the bloggogoround. The cards are on the table.
Oh! I have NOT read the NY Magazine deal. That you SO much for the reminder. I had completely forgotten to do that.
The bigger question, for me, is what is fair and balanced in the media? Both in the blogosphere, as well as print journalism, television and radio? Do journalists ever leave some facts out of their stories, or not cover certain stories at all, due to their own personal agendas, or to advance their own careers?
What power does the "liberal blogosphere" frame have, when it comes to public perception? How does it stack up with the recent news reported right here at NMI about the conservative slant of the opinion pages of the nation's newspapers? These same newspapers are often charged with being part of the "liberal media," so what gives?
Why not just "the blogosphere" in general? Are we to believe that Fox News doesn't regularly read conservative blogs? Someone tell me, because I don't know. But I do know that Fox news is a conservative outlet. Where does it get all the tidbits that feed its 24-hour nonstop "news"? And is it invalid for mainstream media to look to blogs for news? It appears that many news outlets do so routinely these days. It used to be that there were many more newspapers in this country, from small "rags" to metropolitan wide publications. It could be that blogs are picking up some of that slack.
Life, in fact, is not as cut and dried as a lot of career journalists would like it to be. Journalism, by its nature, interprets reality for the public. That is not a function owned by anybody. Regarding the particular case that Heath mentions here, I've actually heard counter-arguments from Barb, et al, for why that particular comment was worthy of being reported. Their question, then, is why didn't Heath himself report it? And why does he think that his interpretation of the context is more valid than theirs?
I guess to me it comes down to two things; opinion vs. reporting and the responsibility of trhe reader/viewer/listener, because it is a two way street.
Since I dwell in framing stuff through opinion you know where my bias lies, but one of the struggles in the business is this very idea. Straight reporting serves one function, while opinion (and to your NMI point) and trhe editorial page another altogether. We all get this, but you'd be amazed how they get crossed up by readers. Stunned in fact.
On the resposnibility side, it mamazes me how many people will look me dead in theye and say, 'well, i only read/listen/watch X for my information."
This is very tricky business. people who only listen to Limbaugh for their guidence commit the same exact crime as those who only consider Amy Goodman. It's different sides of the same coin.
The ultimate test is to dive into places you have disagreement with and give things consideration. What's the harm? I've never understood why people cannot do this. 99% of the time your convictions will be re-confirmed, but it will be informed vs. the cliche that rules the day about who and who and such and such.
BTW, I doubt you'd find any journo who would prefer a cut and dried/black and white world to report on. Gotta say you missed that one widely. Journo's love reporting dynamic, switly changing, hard to keep up with situations because that's where the fun and instinct tests are.
The opposite is dreadul, which is why certain beats which tend to be more cut and dried are torture.
I would hold your statement up as a classic example of where people "think" journo's are coming from as evidence of the results they have issues with.
Be careful there...
Well, I wasn't referring to what journalists prefer to cover. What I meant was that its not so cut and dried regarding "how" news should be covered. Sometimes it seems to me that journalists get on a high horse about the bloggers...along the lines of, those bloggers don't "follow the rules" regarding how news should be reported, so therefore you can't rely on anything they're saying.
I agree with you about checking in on a diversity of news sources. It's really the only way to get the full argument, so you actually make sense. For someone left of center, a good dose of different perspectives can be found in rightwing radio...always a good thing to dip one's toe into on occasion. My favorite, though, is to read widely in magazines.
Solution - if you read something on an obviously partisan blog like mine, check out other views on the story. At least my advocacy slant is obvious and right out front. I think we have much more to fear from those who claim to be unbiased and nonpartisan but aren't. That's the hidden kind of slant that can be much more insidious.
The two times Heath has jumped on the local blogs is when we reported stories or facts he didn't. Think about it. The suggestion is that if he doesn't report on it, it must not be a genuine or worthwhile story. I had no idea he was the appointed the chief arbiter on this.
Moreover his piece on DFNM on his blog didn't include any disclaimer that it was editorial content. He reported it like a news story. And he criticized me for not printing quotes from Tinsley, when he himself never called me for a quote for his story on the POWER OF THE LIBERAL BLOGSPHERE and how we are underhanded. Bad journalism!
Also think about this. When Heath jumped on us about covering Cargo et al. claiming Heather was paying people to be delegates at the GOP convention, and the related story about the firing the news person on KOB, he failed to disclose that Whitney Cheshire had been a columnist on his blog and who knows what else. This time he didn't disclose that Bill McCamley, who lost a close race with Teague, is a friend and also writes on Heath's site.
Hmmmmm.
Same answer actually. But with caveats. Yes, there is some cut and driedness the business is wresting with...and with the help of bloggers no doubt.
There's not much aregument on the basics of covering your bases on who, what, where how...but the last one, why...is the tricky part.
Going narrower, the WSJ "hourglass" style of a story flow vs. NYT style blah, blah. It gets into the technicalities and the discussion is how outmoded/dated it all is. Is it, in fact, a decent read that can hold you?
It's a tough call. Do a story by story count in any paper and see how much is higher profile, emotionally interesting vs. the day to day crime, political, obit, etc. and the majority just isn't very sexy.
Bloggers have the luxury of just dwelling in the high profile, sexy business. I think what sometimes happens is that basic need to report the day to day stuff...because every little thing is important not everyone, but "someone," is the key difference in attitude that gets lost in the opin ion shuffle.
Having to serve "everyone" makes for a different approach.
That's a long way of saying, yes, there is a high horse. No argument. But the crux of the high horsiness is, "come try this for a year and then get back to me about how we or do not do this or that right."
Barb:
Not to get in the middle of the Barb v. Heath situation, but it would be much more precise to say that Heath "wouldn't" report on things in his space (Cargo) blogs chose to vs. "didn't." There's a clear distinction that he himself stated as his reasons back then based on his news judgment. Big, big difference.
if you want to argue that judgment, fair enough, but that needs to be stated. To extrapolate that "wouldn't" as something akin to High Lord makes me uncomfortable.
And that he fired off on bloggers "would" judgment back then. I say again, why is it bloggers have no hesitation (and shouldn't) criticizing his style approach but go wild when the tables turn? When you do something for public consumption all bets are way off, no matter who.
He's simply coming from a different place, as are bloggers. The two have vastly different judgments on what makes a 'story" viable.
For me, this is a good thing because the tension helps both in my view. In the long run the Old School will win some and the New School will get their share as well.
And along the way the finger pointing and accusations sharpen the blade for both.
BTW, the non "disclosure" of Whitney as a columnist is a puzzler for me. Disclosure implies it is a fact unknown that should be known to the reader because it has impact on the POV, etc.. She was there for all the world to see. I'm not sure how his choosing not to disclose that factored into his judgment to not run a story he felt in his view could not be supported enough to run.
Are you saying that WC as a one time freelancer affected that judgment call? If yes, how?
Am I missing something?
Gene, It was not clear to those who linked only to that story and who don't know Heath's blog that he has a link to Cheshire, and it was Cheshire who was yelling loudest that the story wasn't true.
I'm accepting of the fact that a blog like Heath's (and it IS a blog, after all) looks at things differently than more openly partisan blogs. But recall that it was Heath who went on tirade complaining that we had no right to cover the story at all, not the other way around.
When Heath first started blogging, the blogging community welcomed him and gave him lots of links, etc. He never reciprocated much as he apparently doesn't see himself as a blogger and has no respect for bloggers as he has said a number of times. That's where the high horse comes in.
I'll give you that point on the "links" and the direction. I had not considered that. That's a very clear blog world distinction I'll put in my hat for the future. Thanks.
Again, in the spirit of healthy (I hope!) debate, my recollection was not that you and others "had no right," to blog on the issue. It was more on style and vetting, no?
Again, I've never met the chap and feel no compulsion to defend him here other than a gut sense of precision.
BTW, for what it's worth I'm listening to John Zogby's show on XM and they're saying Wed. morning they will release new numbers on Obama/McCain that promises "something" surprising.
Commenting by HaloScan
