If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Salon)   "If journalists are doing their jobs correctly, of course they should be annoying and even enraging the president. But annoying the president isn't in and of itself proof of a job well done"   (salon.com) divider line 51
    More: Sad, Glenn Thrush, Espionage Act, open questions, Maureen Dowd, journalists, press conference, capital offense  
•       •       •

1813 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 May 2013 at 11:31 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



51 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-01 11:35:48 AM
That's unusually derpy for Salon.
 
2013-05-01 11:36:58 AM
If journalists were doing their jobs correctly, we would have never gotten into Iraq, and Santorum would never have been a runner-up in the 2012 elections.
 
2013-05-01 11:39:33 AM

Satanic_Hamster: That's unusually derpy for Salon.


Is it?  Salon usually keeps the derp flowing, it's only sane in context because FARK apparently considers the Daily Mail to be an actual newspaper instead of a tabloid.
 
2013-05-01 11:40:40 AM
It's really the intersection of 2 concepts that create the problem.  One is that the main purpose of the media is supposed to uncover scandals and reveal abuse.  The other is that they have to fill a 24 hour news schedule with news and punditry.

Every minor piece of nothing has to be the biggest deal, or they're not uncovering the big scandals, never mind that big scandals came about twice a decade prior to 2000.  Then in conjunction with that, they have to get new material to talk about every day.  Like I don't think most conservatives could even identify Obama's biggest scandal over the past few years, since every failed ATF operation and embassy security failure gets cast as the biggest coverup ever.

There's no hanlon's razor in news stories anymore as a result.
 
2013-05-01 11:42:45 AM
.....well?   Does Obama still got enough juice left or what?  He's totally dodging the question!
 
2013-05-01 11:43:31 AM

ikanreed: It's really the intersection of 2 concepts that create the problem.  One is that the main purpose of the media is supposed to uncover scandals and reveal abuse.  The other is that they have to fill a 24 hour news schedule with news and punditry.

Every minor piece of nothing has to be the biggest deal, or they're not uncovering the big scandals, never mind that big scandals came about twice a decade prior to 2000.  Then in conjunction with that, they have to get new material to talk about every day.  Like I don't think most conservatives could even identify Obama's biggest scandal over the past few years, since every failed ATF operation and embassy security failure gets cast as the biggest coverup ever.

There's no hanlon's razor in news stories anymore as a result.



You're missing the most important concept: profit.   The news market reward parasitic egotists.
 
2013-05-01 11:45:16 AM

Esc7: .....well?   Does Obama still got enough juice left or what?  He's totally dodging the question!


We've got breaking news from "sources" in the white house that Obama has asked for another glass of orange juice.  Will this help him overcome republican filibuster's in the senate?  For advice we have a paid shill from the Tropicana corporation to explain how this is relevant to the sequester.
 
2013-05-01 11:45:44 AM

Satanic_Hamster: That's unusually derpy for Salon.


I dunno, dude has a good point - the press is willing to attack Obama over meaningless ephemera, but isn't actually willing to hold his feet to the fire on shiat that matters. They've made whether or not he's dying his hair an issue but ignore his penchant for drone-striking and prosecuting whistleblowers.
 
2013-05-01 11:46:09 AM

Jim_Callahan: Satanic_Hamster: That's unusually derpy for Salon.

Is it?  Salon usually keeps the derp flowing, it's only sane in context because FARK apparently considers the Daily Mail to be an actual newspaper instead of a tabloid.


It's not news it's FARK Real news Real funny

Are you not amused?
 
2013-05-01 11:46:44 AM

Satanic_Hamster: That's unusually derpy for Salon.


Let's fix that:

"If journalists are doing their jobs correctly, of course they should be annoying and even enraging the president. But annoying the president isn't in and of itself proof of a job well done they would've been questioning the motives of the Bush Administration for going into Iraq.  Not acting all surprised and shocked when former Bush Adm. spokesperson Scott McClelan came out with his book about that."

The White House/Washington Press Corps aren;t worth their salaries.  That is all.
 
2013-05-01 11:46:52 AM

DarnoKonrad: ikanreed: It's really the intersection of 2 concepts that create the problem.  One is that the main purpose of the media is supposed to uncover scandals and reveal abuse.  The other is that they have to fill a 24 hour news schedule with news and punditry.

Every minor piece of nothing has to be the biggest deal, or they're not uncovering the big scandals, never mind that big scandals came about twice a decade prior to 2000.  Then in conjunction with that, they have to get new material to talk about every day.  Like I don't think most conservatives could even identify Obama's biggest scandal over the past few years, since every failed ATF operation and embassy security failure gets cast as the biggest coverup ever.

There's no hanlon's razor in news stories anymore as a result.


You're missing the most important concept: profit.   The news market reward parasitic egotists.


I suppose I just kind of assumed that.  Sensationalism sells ads is an implicit part of the equation too.
 
2013-05-01 11:46:58 AM
media.salon.com
 
2013-05-01 11:47:19 AM
You know what I miss? JournoList threads.

Also, I refuse to take this man seriously:

si0.twimg.com
 
2013-05-01 11:49:50 AM

Jim_Callahan: Is it? Salon usually keeps the derp flowing, it's only sane in context because FARK apparently considers the Daily Mail to be an actual newspaper instead of a tabloid.


Honestly, I only read the articles/editorials in Salon that get greenlit here and they've generally seemed to be fairly well written, or at least not retarded.

Gunther: I dunno, dude has a good point - the press is willing to attack Obama over meaningless ephemera, but isn't actually willing to hold his feet to the fire on shiat that matters. They've made whether or not he's dying his hair an issue but ignore his penchant for drone-striking and prosecuting whistleblowers.


I really stopped taking him seriously when he claimed that Obama hates reporters.
 
2013-05-01 11:51:30 AM
I thought I would hate this article but I came away mostly agreeing with the author.  The press is juvenile today, for many of the exact reasons that the author mentions.

I remember a moment from GWB's second term that struck me as a certain high-water mark for hard-hitting journalism.  Someone asked him a question about Iraq and he went into his usual shallow dodge, saying, "We were attacked on 9/11 . . . ." Then someone interrupted him and asked, "what does 9/11 have to do with Iraq?" and he was reluctantly forced to admit, "nothing."  I think that was a good moment for the press.  It showed that journalists weren't simply there to parrot the administration's message as it was said, and that the speakers were answerable for their own statements.

I sort of feel like the White House Press Corps keep trying to recapture that moment, even when the President is trying to be straight with them, or at least not BS them to the level that the previous administration tended to.  So, for lack of actual content, they try and trap him and goad him into making provocative statements.  All too often it sounds like middle school taunts: "Hey Barry! In second period, Johnny Boehner said you were a little punk.  Are you going to take that from him?  You should totally challenge him to a fight .  . . you know, unless you are a little punk."
 
2013-05-01 11:52:22 AM

Jim_Callahan: Satanic_Hamster: That's unusually derpy for Salon.

Is it?  Salon usually keeps the derp flowing, it's only sane in context because FARK apparently considers the Daily Mail to be an actual newspaper instead of a tabloid.


I thought the article was dead-on.  There are many pointed questions to ask of this administration.  But the White House press has devolved into, "What, you mean I actually have to, you know, research stuff and prepare actual questions?  Can't I just lob vague aren't-you-willing-to-admit-you-suck questions and call it a day?  After all, that's what a lot of people want.  And it's easy for me."
 
2013-05-01 11:53:47 AM
#1 Every president orchestrates their press conferences with staged questions.
#2 Right wing media doesn't care about the truth, only making the opposition look bad.
#3 All media cares more about ratings and subscribers than any ethical standard of reporting newsworthy events.
 
2013-05-01 11:54:05 AM

Car_Ramrod: You know what I miss? JournoList threads.

Also, I refuse to take this man seriously:

[si0.twimg.com image 250x250]


His fedora needs to go on a date with Drudge's
 
2013-05-01 11:56:58 AM
I like to picture the entire White House press corps repeating every word and movement Obama does until he finally snaps.
 
2013-05-01 11:58:11 AM

DarnoKonrad: Car_Ramrod: You know what I miss? JournoList threads.

Also, I refuse to take this man seriously:

[si0.twimg.com image 250x250]

His fedora needs to go on a date with Drudge's


Will someone please kill me if I go bald and pathetically try to hide it?
 
2013-05-01 12:03:39 PM

Nuuu: I thought I would hate this article but I came away mostly agreeing with the author.  The press is juvenile today, for many of the exact reasons that the author mentions.

I remember a moment from GWB's second term that struck me as a certain high-water mark for hard-hitting journalism.  Someone asked him a question about Iraq and he went into his usual shallow dodge, saying, "We were attacked on 9/11 . . . ." Then someone interrupted him and asked, "what does 9/11 have to do with Iraq?" and he was reluctantly forced to admit, "nothing."  I think that was a good moment for the press.  It showed that journalists weren't simply there to parrot the administration's message as it was said, and that the speakers were answerable for their own statements.

I sort of feel like the White House Press Corps keep trying to recapture that moment, even when the President is trying to be straight with them, or at least not BS them to the level that the previous administration tended to.  So, for lack of actual content, they try and trap him and goad him into making provocative statements.  All too often it sounds like middle school taunts: "Hey Barry! In second period, Johnny Boehner said you were a little punk.  Are you going to take that from him?  You should totally challenge him to a fight .  . . you know, unless you are a little punk."


The examples of questions posed to Obama were horribly insulting.  To me, as a citizen of America.  The fact that they're supposed to be keeping the president honest, extracting information, and informing me but instead ask if he has enough "juice" left is infuriating.  This man is the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth and he seems to get asked questions that serve absolutely no purpose.  It's a disgrace.

/but really....I'm still wondering about how much juice he has left in him.
 
2013-05-01 12:04:12 PM
great article on the subject in today's WaPo

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/04/30/why-the- gr een-lantern-theory-of-presidential-power-persists/

"(H)ere's the problem: If a reporter or analyst were to call out Republicans for failing to compromise with Obama, that reporter or analyst would be calling on them to adopt aparticular policy position, such as moving towards a mix of new revenues and spending cuts to replace the sequester. It would amount to a criticism of the Republican position - i.e., that we should only replace the sequester with spending cuts. This is impermissible for the neutral writer, because it constitutes an ideological judgment. On the other hand, faulting Obama for failing to get Republicans to move his way does not constitute taking any kind of stand on who is right, ideologically speaking. It only constitutes a judgment of Obama for failing to manipulate the process adequately."
 
2013-05-01 12:04:51 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Jim_Callahan: Is it? Salon usually keeps the derp flowing, it's only sane in context because FARK apparently considers the Daily Mail to be an actual newspaper instead of a tabloid.

Honestly, I only read the articles/editorials in Salon that get greenlit here and they've generally seemed to be fairly well written, or at least not retarded.

Gunther: I dunno, dude has a good point - the press is willing to attack Obama over meaningless ephemera, but isn't actually willing to hold his feet to the fire on shiat that matters. They've made whether or not he's dying his hair an issue but ignore his penchant for drone-striking and prosecuting whistleblowers.

I really stopped taking him seriously when he claimed that Obama hates reporters.


Pareene specializes in snark and sarcasm (check out his Hack List), not every sentence is supposed to be taken literally.

And if you really want to find a good read on Salon, search for Michael Lind.
 
2013-05-01 12:09:49 PM

Gunther: They've made whether or not he's dying his hair an issue


You know. On the one hand, I'm glad I wasn't the only one who noticed that.

On the other, I really don't expect it to be national news the next morning.

/America seriously needs a shift in priorities
 
2013-05-01 12:19:47 PM
savejersey.com

"Any of you ladies want a free press?"
 
2013-05-01 12:21:09 PM

Gunther: Satanic_Hamster: That's unusually derpy for Salon.

I dunno, dude has a good point - the press is willing to attack Obama over meaningless ephemera, but isn't actually willing to hold his feet to the fire on shiat that matters. They've made whether or not he's dying his hair an issue but ignore his penchant for drone-striking and prosecuting whistleblowers.


Don't forget that these days flash is superior to substance, look at how many people were giving Rand Paul props for abusing the filibuster to "audition" to be President, but has done jack shiat to even propose legislation keeping military drones off of US soil etc. In fact he's implied he favors using drones in some criminal situations in lieu of a trial by jury.
 
2013-05-01 12:22:24 PM

Peki: Gunther: They've made whether or not he's dying his hair an issue

You know. On the one hand, I'm glad I wasn't the only one who noticed that.

On the other, I really don't expect it to be national news the next morning.

/America seriously needs a shift in priorities


He should start dying it insane colors a la mid 90s Dennis Rodman, but never ever acknowledge that it's anything but his natural hair color.

www.thecampussocialite.com
 
2013-05-01 12:22:30 PM

Esc7: .....well?   Does Obama still got enough juice left or what?  He's totally dodging the question!


Obama has eliminated all of the juice.
 
2013-05-01 12:23:37 PM

Esc7: The examples of questions posed to Obama were horribly insulting.  To me, as a citizen of America.  The fact that they're supposed to be keeping the president honest, extracting information, and informing me but instead ask if he has enough "juice" left is infuriating.  This man is the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth and he seems to get asked questions that serve absolutely no purpose.  It's a disgrace.

/but really....I'm still wondering about how much juice he has left in him.


To put a positive spin on it, it may just be evidence that our current president is pretty honest, overall.  He'll hide things from you.  He'll do things you don't like.  But he won't generally lie to you.

Of course, I don't necessarily think that's a testament to his overwhelmingly strong character.  When you're dealing with a friendly Congress, you don't have to spend a lot of time talking about the non-controversial stuff, so more of your time is devoted to trying to figure out how to put lipstick on the next giant friggin' pig you're trying to pass for your cronies.  With our Congress though, Obama would have trouble passing a non-binding resolution that sunshine and smiles are good.
 
2013-05-01 12:27:37 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Jim_Callahan: Is it? Salon usually keeps the derp flowing, it's only sane in context because FARK apparently considers the Daily Mail to be an actual newspaper instead of a tabloid.

Honestly, I only read the articles/editorials in Salon that get greenlit here and they've generally seemed to be fairly well written, or at least not retarded.

Gunther: I dunno, dude has a good point - the press is willing to attack Obama over meaningless ephemera, but isn't actually willing to hold his feet to the fire on shiat that matters. They've made whether or not he's dying his hair an issue but ignore his penchant for drone-striking and prosecuting whistleblowers.

I really stopped taking him seriously when he claimed that Obama hates reporters.


Why? I'm sure he does hate the White House press. They are shallow, craven oversensitive idiots who think they are amazing.
 
2013-05-01 12:29:56 PM

Esc7: DarnoKonrad: Car_Ramrod: You know what I miss? JournoList threads.

Also, I refuse to take this man seriously:

[si0.twimg.com image 250x250]

His fedora needs to go on a date with Drudge's

Will someone please kill me if I go bald and pathetically try to hide it?


My favorite are the guys who spike their hair around their bold spot.  It looks like they're wearing a tiara, and doesn't fool anyone.
 
2013-05-01 12:42:32 PM

Satanic_Hamster: That's unusually derpy for Salon


I guess criticizing the President for anything is now derp.
 
2013-05-01 12:46:33 PM

justinguarini4ever: I guess criticizing the President for anything is now derp.


More of:  it started out pretty derpy / over the top and read like something from Fox.  Any time someone leads off with "Oh, Obama HATES this group of people" it tends to be a derp article.
 
2013-05-01 12:50:36 PM
"Journalism" in Washington is one giant masturbation circle.
 
2013-05-01 12:59:30 PM

Esc7: The examples of questions posed to Obama were horribly insulting.  To me, as a citizen of America.  The fact that they're supposed to be keeping the president honest, extracting information, and informing me but instead ask if he has enough "juice" left is infuriating.  This man is the leader of the most powerful nation on Earth and he seems to get asked questions that serve absolutely no purpose.  It's a disgrace.


See, the problem is also that even questions that have a solid underpinning are given BS, shallow, and provocative in a wholly emotional way veneers, to pander to the American public who drive ratings and therefore revenue. And, the questions being asked are the same talking-point, narrative-focused, ratings-driven dead horses they have been for years.

Take this "juice" question, for example. It's pretty obvious that, if you scratch the surface, it's speaking to how much political capital Obama gained from the election, whether that capital has been misspent, and whether Congressional Republicans have found means to undermine Obama's capability to expend political capital effectively. It's merely framed in a shallow, pandering, and meaningless in any substantive sense manner, and as such can't even elicit a thoughtful and relevant answer.

What's worse, is the answer is blindingly obvious to anyone who's intellectually honest and paying attention, and has been the same answer for three and a half years running. Obama has the political capital, but Congressional Republican obstruction is rendering it irrelevant (whether you think that is a good thing or not). What more is there to be added to the conversation at this point?
 
2013-05-01 01:13:32 PM
"Boehner seems more focused on passing big pieces of legislation like hiking the debt ceiling and extending government funding "

Really?  The fact that this qualifies as "big pieces of legislation" says volumes about the state of our government.
 
2013-05-01 01:27:00 PM
We'll be right back with opinions from Kool-Aid Man and the Man from Del Monte. Stay tuned.
 
2013-05-01 01:28:36 PM

HotIgneous Intruder: "Journalism" in Washington is one giant masturbation circle.


Exactly. Here is a story that is basically going unnoticed today. Obama decided to nominate congressman Mel Watt from North Carolina for the head of the FHFA. Now at face value this doesn't seem like a big deal. Mel Watt has been in Congress for awhile and he has served on the Financial Services committee. But do a little bit of digging on Mel and you will find that Obama just appointed one of the most bank-friendly individuals you can find to head the agency responsible for overseeing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
 
2013-05-01 01:43:55 PM

that bosnian sniper: Take this "juice" question, for example. It's pretty obvious that, if you scratch the surface, it's speaking to how much political capital Obama gained from the election, whether that capital has been misspent, and whether Congressional Republicans have found means to undermine Obama's capability to expend political capital effectively. It's merely framed in a shallow, pandering, and meaningless in any substantive sense manner, and as such can't even elicit a thoughtful and relevant answer.


Whatever you call it, "juice" or "political capital," it's still bullshiat the beltway media talks about to avoid addressing the substance of the issue at hand.

They avoid substance because they can't talk about it without highlighting how batshiat one side of the argument is. And if they did that they'd be guilty of the dreaded liberal media bias.

So we get juice.
 
2013-05-01 01:59:02 PM
Journalists should be putting all politician's feet to the fire, not just the President.  Members of the press could probably wax poetic about the importance of the First Amendment, then fail to live up to the responsibility that was implied when the amendment was drafted.
 
2013-05-01 03:04:06 PM

that bosnian sniper: Take this "juice" question, for example. It's pretty obvious that, if you scratch the surface, it's speaking to how much political capital Obama gained from the election, whether that capital has been misspent, and whether Congressional Republicans have found means to undermine Obama's capability to expend political capital effectively. It's merely framed in a shallow, pandering, and meaningless in any substantive sense manner, and as such can't even elicit a thoughtful and relevant answer.


IMO it's still a terrible question because it's framed in the "winners and losers" paradigm the beltway loves so much, where every news cycle is about who "won" rather than the issues.

There's good journalism out there for people who are willing to look for it, but the ratings whores are the ones who get to ask the questions at the press conferences. What happens is what the article describes: CNN, ABC, whoever else asks bullshiat questions like "Mr. President would you agree you got totally EVISCERATED by the Republicans today?" prompting the president and a good chunk of the country to write off the entire media as total idiots just trying to pick petty fights.
 
2013-05-01 03:21:43 PM

cubic_spleen: Esc7: .....well?   Does Obama still got enough juice left or what?  He's totally dodging the question!

Obama has eliminated all of the juice.


Alex Jones has been telling us for years that we're at Peak Juice.  If only you sheeple would listen.
 
2013-05-01 03:22:06 PM
the requirements for being a journalist in 2013 are have a big rack and be hot so of course journalism is going to suck
 
2013-05-01 03:32:24 PM

Satanic_Hamster: I really stopped taking him seriously when he claimed that Obama hates reporters.


I've heard similar statements from reputable sources. WNYC's "On the Media" does fantastic media reporting  and they tend to agree. For all the talk of the Obama's "lapdog media," he apparently does not think very highly of the press, and they often resent him for that.
 
2013-05-01 04:56:50 PM

CorporatePerson: Satanic_Hamster: I really stopped taking him seriously when he claimed that Obama hates reporters.

I've heard similar statements from reputable sources. WNYC's "On the Media" does fantastic media reporting  and they tend to agree. For all the talk of the Obama's "lapdog media," he apparently does not think very highly of the press, and they often resent him for that.


Can't say I blame him - nowadays, "the media" has next to nothing in common with the press that we wrote into the Constitution. Not saying it was perfect in the past, but we have way more clownish infotainers than real journalists nowadays.
 
2013-05-01 05:02:19 PM

Lochsteppe: Can't say I blame him - nowadays, "the media" has next to nothing in common with the press that we wrote into the Constitution. Not saying it was perfect in the past, but we have way more clownish infotainers than real journalists nowadays.


"If I want to knock a story off the front page, I just change my hairstyle."  Hillary Clinton
 
2013-05-01 05:02:25 PM

falcon176: the requirements for being a journalist in 2013 are have a big rack and be hot so of course journalism is going to suck


Quite literally, from what I hear, for those who want to climb the ladder.
 
2013-05-01 05:18:54 PM

Lochsteppe: CorporatePerson: Satanic_Hamster: I really stopped taking him seriously when he claimed that Obama hates reporters.

I've heard similar statements from reputable sources. WNYC's "On the Media" does fantastic media reporting  and they tend to agree. For all the talk of the Obama's "lapdog media," he apparently does not think very highly of the press, and they often resent him for that.

Can't say I blame him - nowadays, "the media" has next to nothing in common with the press that we wrote into the Constitution. Not saying it was perfect in the past, but we have way more clownish infotainers than real journalists nowadays.


There's a difference between thinking that the media is a bunch of incompetent jagoffs and "hating them."

For example, I think the media is a bunch of incompetent jagoffs, but I don't hate them, like Hugh Jackman and people who call other people "chief" and people who say "let's rock."
 
2013-05-01 11:55:25 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Lochsteppe: CorporatePerson: Satanic_Hamster: I really stopped taking him seriously when he claimed that Obama hates reporters.

I've heard similar statements from reputable sources. WNYC's "On the Media" does fantastic media reporting  and they tend to agree. For all the talk of the Obama's "lapdog media," he apparently does not think very highly of the press, and they often resent him for that.

Can't say I blame him - nowadays, "the media" has next to nothing in common with the press that we wrote into the Constitution. Not saying it was perfect in the past, but we have way more clownish infotainers than real journalists nowadays.

There's a difference between thinking that the media is a bunch of incompetent jagoffs and "hating them."

For example, I think the media is a bunch of incompetent jagoffs, but I don't hate them, like Hugh Jackman and people who call other people "chief" and people who say "let's rock."


I don't know if I'd feel this same way if I were prez, but I'm mad at the media--my first degree was in journalism, and no matter how naive it sounds, I still believe that the press needs to play their part in order for democracy to function. If I were prez, I would probably be mad at them for different reasons, but even if Power and the Press are adversaries in a way, no one wants an adversary that's clown shoes.
 
2013-05-02 12:58:03 AM

Lochsteppe: , no one wants an adversary that's clown shoes.


fc03.deviantart.net
 
Displayed 50 of 51 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report