David Schuster: "You guys are winning. The mainstream media is losing our audience by the day."

[babylonsister]

Submitted by Rick Perlstein

http://commonsense.ourfuture.org/bloggers_and_heathers_go_15_rounds

snip//


These same questions, not coincidently, were the topic of one of the most impassioned panels at the conference, "Mainstream Media: Fair and Balanced?"

David Schuster of MSNBC told the audience of bloggers and blog-sympathizers: "You guys are winning. The mainstream media is losing our audience by the day." He got bemused applause.

A little later, he got a stark explanation as to why thrown back in his face. It came from Dan Froomkin, the blogger who, from his unlikely perch as a staffer at The Washington Post, brilliantly exposes mainstream media's errors and outrages every day. Big Media's losing its audience, he said, precisely because of the things bloggers say is wrong about it. Its obsession with providing "both sides" of a story, even if one of the sides is consciously lying, "crippled us very deeply." It's kept reporters -- many of whom, he said, who went into the business precisely to expose lies - "from reporting what we see. And calling it like we see it." No wonder the mainstream media is losing market share, said Froomkin: they suck.

He offered chapter and verse. The fact that over two-thirds of the public once believed Saddam was involved in 9/11 is "emblematic of our failure to speak truth to power." Why wasn't it a wakeup call for the entire press corps? Where was the soul-searching? The mainstream media covered "as if it's just another story and bored a nation into complacency. It's inexcusable." Listen to the bloggers, Froomkin advised his bosses. "I think it will help the bottom line."

more...

[Jackpine Radical]

1. M$M aren't particularly interested in the bottom line.

They're interested in promulgating the propaganda of the corporations that own them.

[librechik]

8. exactly--why do they fire their liberal ratings winners?

like donohue. cuz they couls care less about the bottom line. They're just mouthpieces for The Man.

[Lance_Boyle]

14. To be fair, Donahue had abysmal ratings on MSNBC. n/t

[zalinda]

15. Love Donahue, but HATED his show on MSNBC n/t

[originalpckelly]

19. Same here, I loved it when he socked to Bill O'Really...

but his show sucked. I don't know why, but it did. He's cool though and it would be interesting to see him in another format.

[ieoeja]

18. His was the highest rated show in MSNBC history.

At the time of his firing, his show was the highest rated show in MSNBC history. He was fired because his anti-war opinions would create a, "difficult public face for NBC in a time of war".

[librechik]

22. thank you!

thought everybody knew that.

[ieoeja]

23. At one point he had dismal ratings.

Rightists in the media use those ratings as "proof" that his show was killed for ratings. However, his ratings kept climbing and were the highest on the network when he got fired. Then an MSNBC internal memo with the above quote was publicized explaining the reason they really fired him. They were afraid his anti-war opinions would hurt MSNBC.

If you get your news from the radio or primarily Rightist sources -- and in certain parts of this country there *are* no non-Rightist sources -- then all you'd have heard was the Rightist spin.

[Berry Cool]

26. But Keith OIbermann has also pointed out that Donahue's show was extremely expensive

what with the live audience and other factors. He's said several times that he thinks that factor played a role in the decision as much as "the memo" did. (Not that he's saying there was no memo. He himself used to get flak that he wasn't countering each of his liberal guests with a double dose of conservatives to counteract them.)

So, the memo wasn't "the REAL reason." It was A reason.

[Major Hogwash]

40. Donahue's guest from February 2003 was Scott Ritter who said there were no WMD's in Iraq.

So, they cancelled Donahue's show.

Memo or no memo, Donahue was willing to get the truth out about Iraq - and that is why he was canned.

[EFerrari]

45. Yep. He couldn't be the anti-war "face" of MSMBCollaborators.

[Major Hogwash]

41. Want to see high ratings at MSNBC - hire Donahue back!

Hell, it's been almost 5 years.
But, Abrams doesn't have the cojones.

[madamesilverspurs]

74. Well, Abrams

thought a whole hour devoted to Paris Hilton was a good idea...

[dmr]

52. Donahue: "We had to have two conservatives on for every liberal. I was counted as two liberals."

The MSNBC management back then set Donahue up to fail.

Phil was on Hannity & Colmes in 2004 - He had this to say:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200410290004

- snip -
SEAN HANNITY (co-host): What happened at MSNBC?

DONAHUE: Well, we were the only antiwar voice that had a show, and that, I think, made them very nervous. I mean, from the top down, they were just terrified. We had to have two conservatives on for every liberal. I was counted as two liberals.

HANNITY: You have the force of two liberals.

DONAHUE: I mean, you know, it's a shame, you know? Now, we were replaced by Michael Savage, and now they have Chuck Scarborough. And by the way, I wish them all well. A lot of the people who worked for me, incidentally, a wonderful crowd of very young, bright people who worked for me, some of whom have now matriculated to other programs on MSNBC. So I want them to do well, but I certainly wasn't -- it was a very, very unhappy time for me.

HANNITY: You felt mistreated? You felt mistreated?

DONAHUE: Well, we were very -- I was isolated, and we were very alone at the end. And then we had nobody supporting us, and our numbers were very decent. We weren't Elvis, but we were often the best number --

HANNITY: You were the highest-rated show on the network.

DONAHUE: Yes. And we were told to leave.

[TheDebbieDee]

46. "Donahue had abysmal ratings on MSNBC" - Source?

I guess I should have read the whole thread before posting, eh?

[w4rma]

70. No. Donahue had some of the best ratings on MSNBC, actually. (nt)

[liberalmike27]

73. To be fair

MSNBC had abysmal ratings, and Donahue had the best ratings there. Try to get your facts straight.

Cable probably has a few more conservative viewers, so that would naturally favor FOX, or conservative leaning programs, but clearly there is a market for both, and both can gain a following over time. Liberals tend to be more working people who can't as often get around a television.

Clearly, the media isn't just interested in the bottom line. You need to read Manufacturing Consent/Content by Chomsky to get an idea of what the media is up against. But they are purposely promoting conservative, corporate ideas, obfuscating anything that can hurt the corporations or short-reporting it, and deliberately putting fluff pieces on when news damaging to people they want to keep in power, like Bush, at least before he was reelected. Now it doesn't matter, but clearly you notice the media getting far more conservative, talking about stupid issues that don't matter to most Americans. And they wonder why so many don't vote. A guy who makes near minimum, wants health care for himself and his family, and a bit more money, and they are talking about stem cells, abortion, homosexuals,flag burning, and gun control.

The final reason less liberals are watching television and listening to radio news media is that they recognized early on all these things I've said, and have "fled" to the Internet, as the only source where some truth can be found, and if you want, Paris Hilton can be avoided.

[The Count]

75. No, he didn't. He was first in his time slot (in cable news)

They also torpedoed The Spin Room, the 1 hour Crossfire on CNN - any successful program where the left of Gengis Khan POV was being heard.
Propaganda is subsidized - ratings do NOT matter.
Moonie Times, Ny Post - subsidized losers. Same with faux News - in spite their self propaganda: subsidized by other divisions of Faux.

[defendandprotect]

39. Because when they begin to report any truth the whole wall of lies crumbles --

Could anyone have believed that liberals/progressives don't draw audience? What a farce!!!
The only way the right-wing message can succeeded -- except among the most addled-brained -- is when it is kept in place by right-wing financing.
In order to keep neo-cons in power there has to be near total blackout on truth.
They've succeeded in getting their war.
But any time that truth cracks thru the wall of lies crumbles.

NBC FIRED their #1 rated program host -- Phil Donahue -- because you can't put a neo-con cult in place in the White House and have Phil Donohue telling America the truth.

[trudyco]

9. Sure they are - and the propaganda has netted the parent

companies big, big windfalls. We won't get news until the media is separate from things like military industrial complex companies and there is an extensive new Fairness Doctrine. Probably we need publicly financed news that has oversight by the four top political groups.

[Jackpine Radical]

12. Well, yes. My point, really, was that the bottom line for which they are working

isn't generally the one people naively assume it is. The true picture is much darker than that. NBC is in business to enrich GE for example, and that means keeping the war going.

[Berry Cool]

27. You act as if GE were NOTHING but a defense contractor.

They're too diversified to be in business ONLY to perpetuate the war. What I believe they were really concerned about was losing ratings to Fox Noise. Losing THAT kind of money.

[truedelphi]

48. Imean, GE brings good things to Life!

[Jackpine Radical]

80. Not really. I acknowledge that GE has lots of interests besides the war.

Like, for example, avoiding financial responsibility for the environmental messes they have made over the decades. Toxic sludge is good for you.

[peacetalksforall]

82. I don't buy GE weapons obviously and I don't even buy GE light bulbs. I

I won't buy GE anything in between and I consider their advertising is phony because they make the most money on war. I regret not buying GE because I don't want any of heir employees to lose their job, but enough other people don't care. I wonder if Sean Hannity and O'Relly buy GE because of GE's grand push for war (i.e., the WH war machine).

[KoKo]

62. Don't even care about their ratings anymore because it's all about the

propaganda for the bottom line of their Corporate Masters...as you say. We used to think if we complained to them about the distorted reporting, they would listen. We just didn't get how fast everything changed when the Corporates bought them out and now run them and that by complaining we were just verifying their power.

[peacetalksforall]

81. As lies are exposed, more lies are stifling. They either uttlery bore or

or anger. They cause increasing contempt for those who bore and anger us. They also divide us - we also share a contempt who still believe it all with tolerance for those whose pace of life doesn't allow them to learn. The kind who care, but who still think CNN is liberal.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

86. i don't agree

it is more a synergy of corporate ad purchasers, and preconceptions as to what constitutes news nowadays. but it is also viewed as a profit center, whether it is radio, newsprint or TV/Cable/Dish. As soon as profits are at risk, the first place to cut is investigative journalism only to be replaced with Paris-ites and other crappy non-news stories.

Once MSM started hiring PR spinners, blowjob-ready faces, and samplers about "what sells", the news quit being the news. It is more entertainment than journalism. It is divied up into 10.5 minute segments, sandwiched between ads. no matter how cheesy and inane, the ads cost many times more to make than the programming inbetween.

That said, I do agree that the media has become a cheerleader of sorts, and refuses to cover real news that may cause risk to its bottom line.

Name once that NBC or MSNBC said something critical about Billlion Gates. or GE.

[Amonester]

89. Their owners ("$ix $aint Corporation$)' bottom lines don't come from

their Departments of R-W Propaganda (formerly known as Mainstream Media).

No.

Their "true" bottom lines (which probably R kept away from the IRS, "Enron style") come from the amazingly huge (and fraudulent) profits they stash up from the privatizations an illegal and immoral war crime "channels" straight into their bottomless pockets through endless borrowing on the taxpayers' National Credit Card.

Heck, it's "working" even when a majority of citizens oppose it, so: they don't care about losing viewers. :grr:


On Edit: The National Debt Clock's link: http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ (portions of their true bottom line$) :mad:

[Robbien]

2. Corporate media cares only about selling ads

It cares naught about attracting audiences.

When the ad buyers stop paying attention to corporate media, then corporate media will start paying attention.

[FiveGoodMen]

4. If they lose ENOUGH of their audience, the ad buyers will stop buying.

[melody]

17. They sell ads based on ratings -- if they don't have viewers, they don't sell ads

Goodbye, mainstream media.

[KoKo]

64. It used to work that way.....but now the "news" reporting pundits are underwritten

by the corporate owners to keep real news away from the viewer. That's why low rated shows stay on the air. CNN's Glen Beck's ratings are very low but he stays on CNN Headline because he's useful at spreading hate and diffusing topics for Time Warner.

The "news" and pundits are just what they pay for to keep their Globilized Corporate War Mongering message in front of the viewer.

It's nothing like it used to be. :-(

[Joe Chi Minh]

71. Very interesting, in fact, compelling.

[melody]

90. These people are businesspeople first and foremost - it's ALL ratings

If they don't make money, they're not going to underwrite anything. The life's blood of
their philosophy is greed. They didn't become extremely wealthy by throwing their money
down a rat hole. In fact, the only thing that keeps most of these knuckle-walkers GOP is
the tax kickbacks the GOPhers give them.

Glenn Beck no doubt has a very strong demographic, regardless of the low volume. He's a
moron and imbeciles are faithful viewers. lol However, he's losing viewers. He'll lose
more. Keith Olbermann is gaining viewers.

The trend will be toward more of the same.

[The Count]

78. Propaganda ain't a business - they figured it out already.

They sell ads on sports/reality shows. They use the cash to subsidize "news"

[melody]

91. When all the people have stopped watching, they won't continue to throw money at it

It's as simple as that. No businessperson is going to throw a party when no one is there.
They'll fold their tents and leave.

[BlooInBloo]

3. Just think how cool it would be for WaPo to bag Broder/Cohen, and put in...

... Froomkin/Greenwald.

[Supersedeas]

5. Tell it Dan tell it!!

[snappyturtle]

6. I'm K&Ring this because it's a compliment, isn't it? They know

we're on to them. I listen to them for almost exclusively entertainment reasons....love to watch and hear the spin! It's truly amazing. Schuster I like a lot though.

[AX10]

7. Imagine the day that CNN/MSNBC/FAUX...

go off air and the Times and Post stop printing! I would love to see that happen.
That is why we must work to preseve net neutrality!
We are fighting to keep this country free!

:patriot:

:kick:

[ClintonTyree]

57. Unfortunately that won't happen for quite some time.

Older Americans, "the heartland" and such do not and will not get their news from blogs and other net sources. They've been getting their news from the Big Three Networks, newspapers and, to a lesser extent, cable news programs forever. Change does not come easily for these people. They do what they've done since they were kids....watch the nightly news and THINK they're informed. This is why the country is so presently ill-informed.
This very question (about where you mainly get your news from) was in the latest Zogby poll. There were the most obvious choices listed; newspapers, magazines, network news, cable news etc. but also blogs and "comedy programing" as well. They're waking up to the fact that many people get their information from the likes of Stewart and Colbert. Imagine that! ;)
The demise of network and cable news WILL happen, just not at the speed it deserves. There's too many dinosaurs that refuse to change their methods of news absorption. Hey, I'm one of those "dinosaurs" myself (57) but I pride myself on staying abreast of current technology and above all, the pursuit of truth wherever it may be.
I'd say it will be another 30 years before the true, total demise of the 'mainstream' media.

[Uncle Joe]

10. Kicked and recommended

Thanks for the thread babylonsister.

[tblue37]

11. K&R

[Downtown Hound]

13. I quit working for ABC because of the propaganda in the media

Pretty much just about everybody is fed up with them. Reporters, citizens, you name it. They're going to have to change if they're going to survive. The mere fact that Schuster was even there answering question shows that they're finally starting to wake up. A few years ago we never could have gotten this kind of attention from them. They tried to ignore us, hoping we would just go away.

Instead, we got bigger, and they got smaller. I think we are going to see a shift in the media in the coming years. Too bad it took so many dead and so much money wasted for it to happen.

[EFerrari]

16. I couldn't agree more.

I miss the slap of my two papers on my driveway. But I cut them off and went to the net when they refused to cover Ohio. It looks like there are many "Ohio moments" for many people.

It's sad, in a way.

[blondeatlast]

31. "Ohio moments." Great term. Mine was when my local rag went on and on about how bad * was

in their endorsement editorial and then--well, you guessed it.

"Ohio moments." Gotta remember that one.

[The Count]

79. Yup. Mine was Florida 2000. It went downhill from there.

[EFerrari]

85. OH was worse for me because of FL. I KNEW they were going

to steal it and it was like watching a trainwreck instead of just being in an unexpected one. And I couldn't get MoveOn (or anyone) to listen to me for sh!t. :mad:

[The Count]

94. I had listened to Greg Palast - election morning listing the states to be stolen

on Air America. I was already numb by the time it actually came to pass.
And I am bitter because it's still unacknowledged. People still say "he was reelected". But I fault the media less for that one - as our own candidates were complicit.

[Poiuyt]

20. I heard Sam Donaldson say essentially the same thing

He said that the media tries to be "fair and balanced," but that the news isn't always balanced. If there are 100 people advocating one side of a story, and 1 person advocating the other side, the media today would report equally on both sides. He said that the media should be "fair and representative."

[KurtNYC]

21. Which two sides is he talking about here:

obsession with providing "both sides" of a story

the Right and the Far Right?
the Far Right and the crackpot Right?
the exaggerations and the outright lies?

I like the other points but that honestly throws me. They don't have to cover opposing views and they usually don't.

[blondeatlast]

33. they don't have to cover both sides--they need to report the facts and let us

think for ourselves. This point seems completely lost on them.

Just give us the FACTS--don't echo the talking points.

[hvn_nbr_2]

24. Mainstream propaganda cartel losing viewers?

Big Media's...obsession with providing "both sides" of a story, even if one of the sides is consciously lying, "crippled us very deeply."

I think it's time to retire this blatantly false cop-out lie.

When did the propaganda cartel present both sides (or any meaningful information) of the Downing Street Minutes story?

When have they presented both sides of the end of the 800-year-old right of habeas corpus?

When did they present both sides of (DUers can list 40 different stories here)?

Big Media, owned and controlled by Big Money, is all a right-wing Republican propaganda cartel that occasionally tries to feign presenting both sides, when it doesn't really matter.

They're losing audience for the same reason that Russians stopped paying any attention to Pravda and Izvestia--because everyone knows it's all a crock of steaming propaganda bullshit.

[Downtown Hound]

25. When did they ever present both sides of WMD?

Oh I'm sure if we were all to dig hard enough, we could probably find a few voices out in the lone wilderness questioning it against a heavy metal rock concert all stating it like it was fact. That's a typical defense of the corporate media. They'll present the few voices of opposition they allowed to speak in the midst of the general choir, and then claim that they're giving time to both sides.

[Berry Cool]

28. The sad part of all this is, Shuster doesn't really deserve all the flak.

He's one of the few reporters who tells the truth, period. He doesn't "try to give time to both sides." (As if there were always two, and only two, sides to everything. Hmph.)

[Morgana LaFey]

30. What Froomkin said is absolutely true -- not a cop-out lie at all

but what you describe is also true. It's not like the M$M only has ONE fault that people are abandoning them for, after all.

[truedelphi]

49. this is petty but one of the major reasons I abandonned main stream media for

The internets is the internet news uses NO tease. None of this "Famous Hollywood film star discovered dead In vice President's trunk. More at 11."

I don't intend to wait till 11. If I need to know it, I need to know it now!

[Morgana LaFey]

92. I get sick of that too. Local news (ours, anyway) is esp. bad at it

tho they might have gotten a wee bit better lately. Hmm. I'll have to pay slightly more attention.

[Coexist]

29. here is how that "both sides" thing affects the news:

http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=19125

[DeeDeeNY]

67. That nails it perfectly!

:rofl:

[indie_voter]

32. my favorite part:

Schuster affirmed that there was a "great deal of skepticism among reporters" on the administration's Iran claims. He puffed up a little with pride, and said that's why you don't see many reports on Iran these days, because they've evaluated the administration's claims and found them wanting--undeserving of attention.

Froomkin got the last word. He said: That's precisely the point. You don't respond to administration lies about Iran by not running Iran stories. You respond to it by doing stories--about adminstration lies about Iran.

Indeed!

[cyberpj]

44. Indeed indeed! nt

[KoKo]

65. That Sdhuster comment and Dan Froomkin's "back atcha" was great!

Schuster is one of the few who pushes a little harder but it won't be long before a big pay raise will start to silence him.

[stubtoe]

68. Admin. claims "wanting, UNDESERVING OF ATTENTION"?!?

Oh, this is giving me a big fat headache.

Listen up, college journalism students. We need the next generation of journalists to do the job of REPORTING! The hell with this "opinion-shaping" crap we're being fed now.

[blondeatlast]

34. "Its obsession with providing "both sides" of a story..." Just present the FACTS

and let us decide.

I'd be a more stable person if I hadn't grown up with Uncle Walter, I believe, but damn--I remember the NEWS... :banghead:

[live love laugh]

38. That "both sides" line is B.S. They don't even do that. They won't even acknowledge

the real problem, which is as you stated, not reporting the facts.

[nolabels]

54. What facts about Paris Hilton did we miss?

After I stopped watching T.V. i started reading newspapers more but about a two years ago began to realize that 95% of the crap printed in them really isn't news or worth reading either :shrug:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

88. I still don't know her breast size, nor

what size shoes she wears.

[blondeatlast]

35. OBJECTIVITY, you dolts--not "both sides." Give us the FACTS and save yourselves some effort.

Facts don't have "sides." Facts don't require pretzel logic to make them fit a "side."

Facts require questions, phone calls and challenges, but they don't require Herculean leaps of logic to ascertain you are being fair.

Has the entire MSM forgotten what objectivity means? :banghead:

Gad, what a world.

[bleever]

36. David Shuster once again gains further respect from me.

His awareness of this dynamic, and acknowledgment of the failure of the "on the one hand/on the other hand" approach to news, bodes well for the future of MSM.

[Gabi Hayes]

50. did you miss post number 32? Shuster is among the better performers in a VERY VERY bad lot.

that doesn't make him all that good, as I've been noticing lately; the latest, most egregious example being his lavage of one of the WORST skunks I've ever seen: Jeb Babbin, who he kept praising over and over, regarding a book he's pimping.

he said garbage like he was proud to be Babbin's very good friend

if you don't know who I'm talking about, do yourself a favor and look him up

if you've ever seen him on TV, you'll remember him, as he makes people like Michelle Malkin look reasonable

[bleever]

84. I'll check that out.

But I will say that I think Shuster's reporting on the Plame scandal has been really good, and heavily skeptical of the RW spin, so I give him credit for that.

Edit to add: I agree that response #32 adds the right perspective to the whole question of what journalistic integrity is.

[lonestarnot]

37. See ya muthfuckas!

[AX10]

42. F**C off MSM!

:thumbsdown:

[Mrspeeker]

43. So everyone is actually tired of Bad News

Well cept Wiener Savage fans, they apparently live for that stuff.

[OHdem10]

47. When Donnahue left MSNBC he had the highest ratings.

Donhue was covering the "March to Iraq" from an anti-war
position. This made MgMT very uncomfortable.

Recently on one of the other channels, two commnetators
mentioned that period and time indicating they had been
frightened into believing that if they put out anything
negative about the war, they would lose audience.

Losing audience is losing dollars to a Network, MSM or Cable.
They sell the time for commercials based on audience
numbers.

[illinoisprogressive]

51. beautiful. simply beautiful. the msm needs to listen to why they suck.

[murielm99]

53. Winning?

The news is not about winning or losing. They are so wrapped up in their ratings games that they think this is a contest. The country is at stake, and they think this is The Price is Right?

Instead of looking at reporting as a contest, they should be getting the truth out...PERIOD.

People are turning to the blogs because they are doing the real reporting. I believe that there would still be a place for both the blogs and the mainstream media if the media would get rid of the infotainment. We can always read People Magazine for that crap. Work together, and forget about pissing contests.

[Gabi Hayes]

56. exactly...it's just a GAME to them. when the lights/cameras go down,

they're all slap hap happy pals

one of Shuster's bestest buds, according to David himself just the other day, is Jeb Babbin

know anything about him?

how any serious journalist could brag about having a great friend like Babbin boggles the mind

[AntiFascist]

55. Another big problem with the MSM...

is that they have learned how to distract us with human interest stories, often involving kidnapped women, Paris Hilton....the list is endless. When something controversial is happening with the current Administration informed people are learning to go to the web first to find out what is really going on. In a way, this is conditioning people to trust blogs more to dig and get to the bottom of things while the talking heads, at their very best, will only provide a short synopsis. Sound bites are what's important in news broadcasts and they usually assume that the average viewer has a severe case of ADD.

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

58. I ranted about the both sides thing today with Cheney's latest the law doesn't apply to me

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1157918&mesg_id=1158775

[riona]

59. The MSM pre war reporting was the last straw for me

Before that, they only seemed biased, sensational, lazy, and untrustworthy. The prewar "reporting" showed that they had completely lost what was left of their creditability and respect. The viewing audience deserved IN DEPTH reporting on the sound data which drove the anti war advocates, many who knew the Middle East history and mindset down to the last detail. Instead, we got the administration's scare tactics, patriotism gibberish, and the democracy spreading dribble. They have truly dumbed down their viewing audience. If those people are what they have left, they deserve it.

[SammyWinstonJack]

60. "both sides" ? LOL!

:spray: :rofl: :silly: :spank: :banghead: :argh:

[The Count]

77. yeah, Bush's and Cheney's silly. Where's your Colbertrivia?

[Geek_Girl]

61. I can't understand why this is so hard for cable news to do

They have 24 hour news cable stations that shows nothing but crap. Why don't they try having a couple of programs dedicated to reporting hard news old school "Kronkite style". Then they can have a few programs that have crappy entertainment news like e news and then through in a couple talking heads bullshit programs like Mathews and Russet. They have 24/7 news cable station, they can surely through in a little hard news.

The other thing I can not understand is there is a war on and rarely do I see images or see news reporting on what is going on in Iraq. There's a fucking war on, and they're is very little reporting on the biggest news story of my time. How frickin lame is that?

[LeftHander]

63. When did the MSM stop reporting "facts" and reporting debate?

It seemed to creep in the last 6 years...basically turned me totally off MSM. I can't stand to listen the the obvious lies presented as "the other side" that legitimizes outrageous ideas from a small vocal minority that is lying.

[livvy]

66. If you haven't already read it...

Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush by Eric Boehlert is a righteous rant about the horrendous job the MSM has done under this administration.

[happygoluckytoyou]

69. TONY SNOW HERE.... TO CLEAR THINGS UP

Hi, Tony "snowjob" Snow here to clear up this media thing.

It is good that the mainstream media is losing audiance, it is easier to find the shills we need for the press conferences. On th bright side it allows me to expand my powers to the audiance of the internets. I speak to you now as the president's mouthpiece, and a spokesman for the big dick.

WHEN THE MAINSTREAM AUDIANCE SHRINKS... THE TERRORISTS LOSE

Thank you for listening.

I love the media
I love W
I love god
I love dick
I love lamp

[HowHasItComeToThis]

72. FROMKIN SAYS.....

Froomkin got the last word. He said: That's precisely the point. You don't respond to administration lies about Iran by not running Iran stories. You respond to it by doing stories--about adminstration lies about Iran.

[The Count]

76. "You don't balance the truth with a lie" - E.R. Murrow. From protests coverage

onward - that's precisely their MO- all of them!
I woke up to their lies with the recount coverage in 2000. And those were 'the good ol' days". In 2004, exit polls have been quietly scrubbed - and the whole story with them (thanks in part to our cowardly candidates)
Colbert's staple question to his guests: "Bush - great president, or the greatest?" encapsulates the "debate" we've been having in the media for the past 6 years.

[Martin Eden]

83. Reporting on "BOTH SIDES" of the story ...

... giving equal emphasis even when one side is blatantly wrong, reminds me of a quote by Paul Krugman in his book The Great Unraveling. He was commenting on the lack of scrutiny applied to unsupported assertions mad by candidate Bush in his debates with Gore. It goes something like this:

If Bush stated the earth was flat, the headlines the next day would read:
Shape of the earth: views differ

[bigtree]

87. Froomkin is a gem. A must-read

this quote is especially prescient:

"(Big Media's) obsession with providing "both sides" of a story, even if one of the sides is consciously lying, "crippled us very deeply."

[npincus]

93. kick