Comments on: Talking heads on talking heads

By: Ho, ho, ho, it's Imus! « Likelihood of Success

Ho, ho, ho, it's Imus! « Likelihood of Success — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 04:52:11 +0000

[...] Recent Comments Ron Coleman on Warming up northLynn B. on Warming up northRon Coleman on Holocaust Denial – It’s the New BlackRon Coleman on The bestehK on Talking heads on talking heads [...]

By: Ho, ho, ho, it's Imus! « Likelihood of Success

Ho, ho, ho, it's Imus! « Likelihood of Success — Sun, 08 Apr 2007 04:52:11 +0000

By: K

Sat, 07 Apr 2007 23:49:54 +0000

The only reason the media liked McCain in 2000 is because the GOP candidate hadn’t been chosen yet. Had McCain become the nominee he would have become unacceptable immediately. In 2008 the media will tell us who the GOP should nominate again. Then they will back the Democrat.

One reason why the media increasingly consults itself is simple – follow the money.

It costs little or nothing to present the views of fellow media professionals. They are available, amiable, skilled at presentation, and unconcerned about what they say – having no responsibilty. In contrast a real expert may be busy, an appointment has to be made and there can be logistical expense. The real expert may want to know the parameters of the program and may insist on research before pontificating. He/she may even say something is unclear, unresolved, or cannot be known.

Put another way, real experts can be aggravating and perhaps even hold views the producer doesn’t care for.

Showtime!

By: FIAR

FIAR — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 21:37:16 +0000

who wants to watch a hog being strangled?

Maybe I do. You got a problem with that?

By: craig mclaughlin

craig mclaughlin — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 20:51:33 +0000

I agree with everything that’s been said by everyone. And I agree with this: “So does just wearing a suit on TV.” With one tiny Dick Caveat, I can’t take seriously anyone whose shirt collar doesn’t fit them– if you’ve got a fat neck use that TV money to buy a shirt in a bigger neck size. I mean really, who wants to watch a hog being strangled?

I have no opinion on Atkins.

By: Ron Coleman

Ron Coleman — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 19:05:15 +0000

Well, Craig, you’re saying that the phenomenon Fitch describes is what makes it possible for these people to come across as authoritative. But you know what? So does just wearing a suit on TV.

By: craig mclaughlin

craig mclaughlin — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:09:48 +0000

“Well, I’d say not only do we like to argue, but we’re good at it…”

Yes, I meant to imply some level of skill. And as to your last point: Some lawyers write more gooder than others.

FIAR writes: “As a result, viewers come to see the news presenters as news authorities.” Mebbe so. But I think the real problem is that the news presenters come to see themselves as news authorities.

By: FIAR

FIAR — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 16:50:32 +0000

I think the whole premise may relate to your idiot box post. Viewers see these personalities on their television, telling them what’s going on in the world. As a result, viewers come to see the news presenters as news authorities. Newscasters aren’t perceived as simply a person that reads the teleprompter without sounding robotic. They are perceived as knowledgeable.

By: Ron Coleman

Ron Coleman — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 14:58:02 +0000

Why is it that so many of the best blogs are written by lawyers? Because lawyers like to argue and a lot of media stories touch on legal issues and they are always wrong.

Well, I’d say not only do we like to argue, but we’re good at it, and we know how to focus on what the issue is, not what is surrounding it. That doesn’t mean our conclusions are right, or even our analysis, but the dialectical method does have its advantages.

Also most lawyers write good.

By: craig mclaughlin

craig mclaughlin — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 06:07:06 +0000

Well struck. I’ll add: I’ve been appalled at how bad journalism is for a long time. (As if I’m the only one) And it is getting worse. TV news is the worst. It is all crap. Anecdotal, ignorant crap. Every network uses the same format, and usually covers the same stories in the same order. And they usually, including FoxNews, get the same stuff wrong. Print is a little better, but not much. Full disclosure: I’ve been a journalist, part time, and freelance. Most journalists are only interested in writing a good story. A good lede, a good nutgraf. And if what they are reporting on doesn’t have an obvious narrative hook it is necessary to invent one. Even the best journalists do this.

I think blogs possess two main values: First they enable someone who cares about a story to fact check and give feedback in something close to real time. Second, it allows people with expertise in an area to call BS on stories written by people who don’t. Why is it that so many of the best blogs are written by lawyers? Because lawyers like to argue and a lot of media stories touch on legal issues and they are always wrong. My main complaint about Linda Greenhouse, for example, isn’t her politics its that she doesn’t know what the hell she’s talking about.

I’ve been a military officer and I can tell you that the level of knowledge in the fourth estate about things military is also god awful. Maybe forgivable in peacetime, but after years of covering shooting wars it isn’t. That why milbloggers are important and, I believe, why they are so widely read.

Where blogs fall down is when do same things that caused us to turn away from the MSM in the first place. Like holding forth about things they don’t know anything about. Or, rushing to judgment on stories or quotes that are wrong or incomplete. Or indulging in endless pointless speculation. Or interviewing each other or themselves about their wonderful awesome bloginess. (Keep those stories about falling circulation among major dailies coming guys!)

Of course, I still read them anyway. I guess I’m a sucker.