An observation about the hopelessly biased media and the filibuster

[Cats Against Frist]

I've been thinking about this, for a couple of days, and I just wanted to see if there are others who agree with my thesis on the media, and the filibuster. I've worked as a journalist, and I can say that ANY time that there was going to be "big news," -- sorry to say that, even if an orphanage had burned down -- I would get kind of excited to be reporting on a "big story."

I remember when, back in the 90s, my main criticism of the news media was that they would do ANYTHING for ratings -- and the way to increase ratings was to "dramatize" events such that they could be played, repeatedly, create an ongoing story, etc.

I can't think of anything bigger to happen to the Alito story, than having a dramatic filibuster, a subsequent "nuke option," and/or a shutdown of the Senate. My question is -- and I suppose, for some, it's obvious -- it seems to me that this is the most-laid-bare example of the newsmedia being bought and paid for by Bush Co., the corporations, etc.

It seems to me that the angle would be that the "filibuster" was a big deal -- because it IS, whether gutsy or brillant or bold or stupid and disasterous -- and the news media KNOWS that if they took that angle, instead of all the "Kerry on the ski slopes" angle, and the Ford "dignified end," angle -- that they would call attention to the filibuster, make it a huge story, and possibly stir up excitement.

Their approach runs counter to what I think that a reporter's or news organization's instinct would tell them, and counter to, I think, a human tendency to recognize the drama in an underdog v. overlord story.

That's what shows me that this is a crock. I mean the attention Swiftboat Vets were bad enough -- but this is history we're talking about, here.

Is my sense just off, or does it seem weird, in that way, to others?

[blm]

1. That's why GOP cronies bought control of broadcast media in the 80s & 90s

Because they knew they could control the next century once they controlled the airwaves and replaced real journalists with news readers catapulting the propaganda from BushInc.

[Cats Against Frist]

3. I was trying to think of an argument against my observation

and the main one that I came up with is that "excitement" might further push things, and the newsmaker would then have, I think, the unethical role of "creating" news. That would be all well and good if it weren't perfectly clear to anyone who is not a dumb ass that with headlines like "Democrats squabble," and words like "die-hard dems," (which I think has a derrogatory connotation), and the re-plays of Scotty's senseless little PR jab, and the tone of inevitability that Alito will be confirmed, that they actively seem to be making news in such a way to discourage the filibuster.

And no real journalist, in his or her right mind, would pass up the chance to cover and bloviate and sensationalize something so huge. It just doesn't make any sense -- or it does, because your observation seems to be disturbingly true.

[blm]

7. It is true. My spouse works in a newsroom.

.

[bobalu]

9. That's interesting..could you give us some first-hand quotes?

[blm]

11. Read a book that's put out annually called Into the Buzzsaw.

It tells you the top ten stories that newsrooms refused to print or discuss, even though the stories were researched and verified.

Once you read one, you'll understand a bit more how newsroom decisions are made.

[bobalu]

12. Actually, I have read at least one book on the subject,

but since you mentioned that your spouse works in a newsroom, I thought I might hear something closer at hand....I guess you're just being "cautious". Whatever.

[blm]

18. He doesn't make editorial choices but knows how they're made.

He sees it everyday. Alot of it has to do with their advertisers...and in some cases they're large stockholders.

[Salviati]

2. Definately...

If there's one thing that I think everyone of any political stripe could agree about the media, is that it is heavily biased towards sensationalism, and what's more politically sensational than the fillibuster of a Supreme Court nominee...

[Cats Against Frist]

8. Not much. That's what seems so troubling.

As a writer, and a student of critical theory, I'm usually pretty sensitive to these kinds of changes. Of course, I've notice the change in media, with the hate radio and FOX and CNN falling completely to the dogs -- but I've never observed this, this blatantly, in this context: the complete rejection of a potentially huge, ongoing story. I suppose that election discrepancies could have been one, too, though -- and some Bush admin. scandals -- but this is all real-time, and doesn't involve lots of numbers, or data, or obscure references to memos written in Tjablahblahstan, which would put viewers off. This is domestic, there's not much to "investigate," -- all they have to do is cover the story.

[mikelewis]

4. Even if they don't take our side, this should be all over the news...

odd that it's not.

I've stopped trying to figure out why the Media does what it does. It's best to not feed them and hope they'll just go looking for food elsewhere.

K & R

[Cats Against Frist]

5. I was also wondering if the failure to "feed them"

on behalf of the Democratic party could potentially be contributing to this. Remember the memo from the ABC guy who finally got his reality-based wits about him and said: "whoa -- wait a minute. If we've just decided to cover he said/she said, and one side is FUCKING CRAZY and will lie with impunity, then how does that remain objective?"

As a journalist, sometimes my frame (because they're ALL framed), would kind of lean toward the loudest side, or the side that seemed, to me, to have the prevailing opinion -- that air of inevability, or something. I know that the GOP talk-point-spin machine is so very loud -- do you think any of this could be a failure of the Dems to get their message out there? And I don't necessarily mean through radio, or the other channels, but the lack of organizations that are calling/faxing, etc.? -- going through the normal PR channels? Or is it seriously just because they've all been bought?

Sorry -- I know you said you'd given up, but I'm just thinking out loud. I'm perplexed.

[mikelewis]

20. It could also be that the Dems just don't want the publicity right now...

As long as there's no filibuster, there's no opposition to a filibuster either. Right now, we are the only one's calling. If this were all over the news, the right-wing nutjobs would be given time off work so they could call every Senator 20 times under different names to put pressure on the Republicans.

By the time the vote rolls around, it'll be too late for the Republicans to phoney up enough mock outrage to stop the first round. While the Republicans are sitting around thinking it's all over, we're generating a hurricane. By keeping it silent, they've let the huricane gain speed over warm water. When it finally hit's land it's going to be a Cat 5 Hurricane versus the Nuclear Option. I'm sort of interested to find out which one will win.

It's kind of like that Knight Rider episode where Michael and Kit take on Golaith, two indestrucble vehicles on a crash co.... I'm gonna shut up now.

[bobalu]

6. I think you're dead on...

and that your observation would apply, even more so, to say the "Jeff Gannon--Male prostitute in the White House" story...Frankly, that was it for me...It was a reporter's most "sensational" dream...When they "passed" on it...I knew, REALLY knew..That they - and we -- had been bought and sold.

The whole situation reminds me of a movie from the Seventies, "Network" in that the Peter Finch character , a news anchor, starts getting BIG ratings by suddenly ranting against the establishment -- "I'm Mad as Hell and I'm not going to take it anymore"!!

The ratings are through the roof, but the "message" is subversive...and the "powers that be" find that dangerous, despite the ratings, and so have him brainwashed into a stance of "acceptance"....He brings this to the airwaves, and his ratings start to plummet.

...When concerned network executives bring that news to the Corporate Honcho, he says " I don't care...I don't care if only 5 people are watching it...I want him to continue.."

Creepy and "prophetic"..considering the film came out about 30 years ago.

[Cats Against Frist]

10. Yeah, I was thinking about some of those other things

like Sibel Edmonds, spy stuff, etc. -- but there's something, to me, that seems different, here -- it has a broad appeal to both the left and the right and there's not a lot of nuance -- because of the nature of the thing, they'd have a lot of good floor footage -- the pukes would be pissed as hell and sing like banshees, a longstanding Senate rule would be overturned -- very domestic, nothing having to do with secret WH meetings that could be "embarrasing" to Bushler. It's not "investigative," -- it's a very simple story -- lots of appeal.

[bobalu]

14. ..but they have a chance to actively "shape the message",

propagandize..so they're doing it..That's my take. Pretty scary, when you think of it.

[Cocoa]

13. especially since they've been framing a filibuster as nearly impossible

given their relentless drumbeat about how there's no chance in hell the dems would dare filibuster, Kerry's announcement should have been treated as a shocker.

Instead, they chuckle along with the GOP's skiing jokes. :mad:

[jarnocan]

15. The mandated mantra

- that this is going to be an easy confirmation-Alito will be nominated "easily" "as expected" right from the start- on every mainstream media report I have seen or read -"seems to me that this is the most-laid-bare example of the newsmedia being bought and paid for by Bush Co., the corporations, etc." and now they just keep repeating that the filibuster is useless etc.
I am so sick of it all.

[Imajika]

16. The media are aware that the votes...

...aren't there to sustain a filibuster. It will be a big story indeed if this effort to change the minds of Senators and pressure them to vote no on cloture begins to look as if it might succeed. At the moment though, the votes aren't there to make a successful filibuster happen - so it just looks like sour grapes and politicians pandering to the base to the MSM and Washington insiders.

A few more Senators switch their position like Feinstein did and the filibuster issue will get more media coverage. Still, as long as the "Gang of 14" believes Alito does not represent an extraordinary circumstance, there is no chance it succeeds anyway - and the media know this.

[Cocoa]

17. the media was "aware" that the dems wouldn't filibuster at all

it was bullshit.

[sandnsea]

19. That and the "bipartisan" angle

This isn't the kind of broad bipartisan vote that the replacement for O'Connor should have. Any reporter who cared about this country would report the truth of this near party line vote and that even some Republicans are considering voting against Alito. That is as outrageous, from a strict news angle, as the way they're reporting the filibuster.