« Hope Is Not a Blank Slate | Main | Obama Quote Of The Day »

February 16, 2008

Lamestream Media Howler Of The Day

Professional journalism is not for the faint of heart. Unlike that upstart blog mob who stoop to ideological gamesmanship with the news of the day, reporters are charged with a sacred trust: the Public's Right to Know.

Theirs is an ancient and honored craft. They are Gatekeepers at the entrance to a vast, information highway; and since bloggers can do little else but latch on to them like loathesome, disgusting leeches , it behooves the media to take great care with the crumbs they let fall into our fumbling, greedy hands:

Media interest in Iraq has declined as conditions have improved. The February 4 CyberAlert item by the MRC's Rich Noyes, "As U.S. Troops Succeed, Media Retreat from Iraq War Story," reported:

...over the last five months, the broadcast networks have consistently reduced their coverage of Iraq, as if the story of American success in Iraq is less worthy of attention than their old mantra of American failure in Iraq.

Media Research Center analysts tracked all coverage of the Iraq war on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from September 1 through January 31, and we documented a steady decline in TV coverage of Iraq that has coincided with the improving situation in Iraq. Back in September, the three evening newscasts together broadcast 178 stories about the war in Iraq; in January, that number fell to just 47, a nearly fourfold decrease....

Last year about this time, the media said they didn't report the good news in Iraq because they couldn't find any good news. Now, there is more good news than bad, and yet they seem to have gone largely silent. Why is that?


Unlike the Wednesday CBS and NBC evening newscasts, ABC's World News highlighted a favorable development in Iraqi political progress as anchor Charles Gibson gave 20 seconds to: "Overseas, in Iraq, a breakthrough for the country's government that has been so often criticized. Iraq's parliament approved three contentious, but crucial, new laws long sought by Washington. The laws set a budget for 2008, grant amnesty to thousands of detainees and define the relationship between the central government and the provinces."

A month ago, on January 14, Gibson was also the only broadcast network evening newscast anchor to cite how "Iraqi lawmakers have put their differences aside and agreed to allow some members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party to take government jobs. It's a key benchmark sought by the United States."

The CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News on Wednesday night both found time to report on how Secretary of Defense Robert Gates broke his arm in a fall on ice and how, for the first time, a Beagle (named "Uno") won "Best in Show" at the Westminster Dog Show. Gibson, who broadcast from Philadelphia, the site of the dog show, managed to note the development in Iraq as well as Uno's win.

As Oh Bloody Hell, who sent the Editorial Staff this item, so aptly put it:

"News about *a Beagle* vs. Important *positive' news on Iraq. Which one gets air time? Need you ask?"

It's enough to make you howl with frustration.

Posted by Cassandra at February 16, 2008 10:35 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


"Theirs is an ancient and honored craft."


"She patronized extensively a man, Ulysses Gunne,

Whose mode of earning money was a low and shameful one.

He wrote for certain papers, which, as everybody knows,

Is worse than serving in a shop or scaring off the crows."

Delilah, by Rudyard Kipling

Just one example how words change their meaning over time...

Posted by: SDN at February 16, 2008 06:31 PM

This makes perfect sense if you calculate the amount of brainwashed youths, baby boomers, and post Vietnam generation folks that got sucked into the fake liberal con game, Cass.

This is how the media and the Democrats did it. This is why people seem to only remember the race wars and the problems done to blacks instead of the problems done by blacks.

Psychological studies have shown that you can modify a person's behavior with rewards and negative reinforcement. And the media knows this and has been doing this for decades. They got really started in WWII.

The media provides the ideological and informational framework for a specific individual, and then it only requires the assent of the individual for the program to start working.

It's like hypnosis, it doesn't work unless you want it to work. When a person listens to the media, he wants to be convinced by the media, at least subconsciously. That's all that a propaganda apparatus needs, is your attention.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at February 16, 2008 10:36 PM

Last year about this time, the media said they didn't report the good news in Iraq because they couldn't find any good news.

Their other explanation was that car bombs were more sensational and new. Building schools was old news and wouldn't interest folks.

This is sort of like saying "we wouldn't help the South Vietnamese because they are losing". It specifically ignores the fact that they are losing because you made them lose.

The media knows that building schools won't interest Americans because the media has invested time and money to ensuring that they don't get interested by the media conducting human rights missions in Iraq.

When the Democrats do something like that for Americans, now suddenly the media says everybody will be interested.

Their answer changes because they are a propaganda apparatus. And those things are not designed to ensure that you get what you want to know, they are there to ensure that you get what they want you to get. And if they don't want you to get an idea of what is going on in Iraq, then they'll say whatever they think you will buy. Those snake oil salesmen knew how this worked quite well.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at February 16, 2008 10:40 PM

the media conducting

Military conducting.

It's enough to make you howl with frustration.

Do you howl in frustration when terrorists blow up women and children?

Or do you do as I do and support efforts to cleanse the world of terrorists?

The media's the same way. They are the way they are. The problem is getting rid of them.

Posted by: Ymarsakar at February 16, 2008 10:44 PM

Beagles are important. My first dog was a beagle. I really enjoyed the reporting on Uno, which cheered my morale somewhat out here.

Now, if we could report on Iraq and also beagles, that'd be good. For example, if they did away with reporting on celebrities, there'd be time for both news and dogs.

Uno, si! Brittney, no!

Posted by: Grim at February 16, 2008 11:18 PM

I agree with you - beagles *are* tremendously important beasts :p

Otherwise, they would hardly have been given such an impressive voice, for to serenade the less fortunate at all hours of the day and night. Our first dog in our married life was a beagle too. And a fine beagle she was.

Posted by: Cassandra at February 17, 2008 09:56 AM

Voyage of the Beagle. The Beagle, wasn't that the name of Darwin's ship to the Galapagos?

Posted by: Ymarsakar at February 17, 2008 03:07 PM

Mind you, I'm not saying beagles aren't fun and good story fodder. But when they "don't have time" for GOOD Iraq stories, I think the beagle must wait atop the doghouse for another day.

'Sides which, bassets beat out beagles hands down. If one of THEM won Westminster, THAT would be news.


Posted by: obloodyhell at February 19, 2008 02:01 AM