See the link below for how some notable political journalists let candidates dictate stories for scoops. Politico and The Atlantic are implicated. Let's try not to make it political in the bad sense. Anybody with knowledge of journalism--how entrenched would you say this stuff is?
I hate gawker, but give credit where it's due - (
New Window )
While in college, I worked a bunch of odd jobs, one of them at a restaurant near City Hall. Even as a teenager and low level employee, I had a first hand look at how the newspaper reporters used to lobby City Hall to get scoops, and how City Hall basically manipulated them by giving them access. Akin to a letter of recommendation, I was just surprised they didn't write the damn articles for them.
1. There is a lot more job hopping between media and political parties/administrations than in the past.
2. There are so many more news and "news" outlets than in the past that the media types really fear being cut out of the loop. When it was only ABC, NBC and CBS it would have been completely obvious if an administration or Congressperson denied access. They would have been called out on it, even by the other networks. Now, with the myriad of outlets, somebody's going to be out of the loop merely because there's not enough time to give access to all the media. You can stick it to someone and not get called on it. And this is exacerbated by the fact that you may have an old staffer or colleague at the alternative outlet willing to do your bidding
Looking at this case and considering my experience on both sides, I'm not really that shocked.
It sounds like these guys had gotten friendly on the trail and these are friendly nudges.
PR people generally are happy-go-lucky (explaining his shitty joke with #3) and #1 and #2 is this guy asking for positive spin - Traditionally, this comes as - "Hey, it would be great if you could frame the story this way..." In this case, it sounds like 2 friends talking and the PR guy taking advantage of an opportunity to make requests.
If you look at it from the reporter's perspective, he's got to do his job and ask for the speech. He gets the email and he sees 2 demands - the first is just really fucking dumb adjective request and the second is info that would make the story in one way or another anyway. For any event you're reporting on, you are going to list a few names if there are big names attending.
So, if you're the reporter - are you stand-offish and take a stand for journalistic integrity. Or do you cut your friend a break to get the speech and get on with your day (This isn't Watergate), and put "muscular" in your copy?
For the record, I wouldn't have accepted these dumbass requests. But I'm also not the doucher this reporter sounds like and would have never made friends with the PR person in the first place.
Disagree. Especially when you separate news reporting from opinion. Look even at Fox News, which on the editorial/opinion show side is obviously an organ for the GOP. But their their REPORTERS are very good.
The bigger problem is (1) laziness, (2) short resources and the relentless drive of the 24/7 news cycle, and (3) being afraid of being called biased so you present everything as he-said-she-said. Oh, and sources now know that there are far more reporters than sources, so sources can dictate terms (most notably, anonymity).
Just my 2 cents.
Regarding this particular thing: It's a huge compromise to agree to say something in your own voice, as opposed to attributing that description to the PR people or Clinton's team. I work with Hollywood publicists, who are the most infuriating control freaks you could ever encounter, and I have never had anyone insist I use a particular word in a story in exchange for access. That's a very peculiar trade. When you say something in your own voice, you're endorsing that view. As a journalist, you have to be extremely careful about that kind of editorializing. If you do it, you'd better be prepared to stand by it.
What's so important about that transcript? Why was that worth accepting that condition? I don't get it. Ambinder seemed to give that mile way too easily. It suggests there's a lot of that horsetrading going on.
Some of this is the inherent problem of access journalism. In entertainment, the bigger the name, and the more people competing to talk to that name, the more emboldened the PR people are to ask you to compromise your integrity in ways large and small. Access to the star is limited, the PR people control that access, and they use that control to pressure you to regurgitate their spin.
How many times have you heard a sports star on the radio and at the end of the interview, he talked about the charity he's working for or the event he's appearing at or the product he's pitching? That's access journalism. Sure, you can have Billy Halloffamer on your show, but you have to talk about TheThingHesHawking. That's the price of access.
Any time you're in the access journalism business you're going to be constantly confronted with this issue. It's a somewhat adversarial process. You work with the PR people, because they need you and you need them, but you have to be willing to push back or they will eat you alive.
Lately I've been trying to book a bunch of movie star interviews. For the project I'm doing, I don't particularly need to talk about their current movies. But the people who are arranging the interviews represent the movies, not the stars, and they insist I ask about the latest movie in the interview. Ok, it's kind of a waste of time as far as I'm concerned, but that gets me my access. On the other hand, they didn't make it a condition that I must include that material in the pieces I run. So if it's good, I'll use it, and if it's not, I won't. (On yet another hand, they probably can arrange it so I have 5 minutes and the star talks about the movie for 4 1/2.)
Of course, a top government official has that power in similar ways to a top movie star. Washington and Hollywood are similar in that respect. It's kind of a dirty business, but it seems like the Washington guys are making compromises that would be suspect even in Hollywood.
If media is simply going to report that Candidate X held a rally today and this is what she said, well they have a much harder time now showing how they are adding value beyond the Twitter, Facebook, social media etc. output of the campaign office.
When left to their own devices, many journalists are lazy (and often stupid) and are perfectly happy to spew out cliches and canards that conform to their own preconceived notions and biases. I saw this in college, as both a campus politico and as a columnist at the Daily Pennsylvanian.
FYI, the Daily Pennsylvanian at the time was headed up by Executive Editor, Peter Canellos, the former Editorial Page Editor of The Boston Globe and now the Executive Editor of Politico.
The student government included such figures as Frank Luntz. Back then in 1982-83, Luntz ran a slate of candidates for the Undergraduate Assembly, I forgot what he called it, but it results in the total takeover of the Undergraduate Assembly by the fraternities. This was a lousy thing to do, as he mobilized an institutional inequality in which institutions that were exclusively male and also happened to be overwhelmingly white had been organized and occupying premium real estate in the heart of the campus, at a school which had not been fully integrated by gender until 1976.
Needless to say, the "Interfraternity Slate" completely dominated the elections and took over control of the UA.
Peter Canellos and my roommate walked home with me, from the election results convention, in which my roommate and I were a small minority of non-fraternity members who got elected. But we knew it was a Pyrrhic victory.
I said of Luntz' Interfraternity Slate's big coup, "We got hammered. Anybody with an ounce of integrity should resign from the UA."
And that was "Quote of the Day," the next day in the Daily Pennsylvanian.
And of course, I did not resign.
Because I was an unsophisticated politician and did a lousy job of message control while in the presence of the Executive Editor of the Daily Pennsylvanian, who is now the Executive Editor of Politico.
It makes perfect sense of politicians to use the same PR resources and message discipline that any corporation would use. They suck at their job if they don't.
Hillary's problem is that she is, if anything, too good at her job, preparing constantly, the way any good Yale graduate would. Unfortunately for her, she is not at absolutely brilliant at feigning spontaneity as her husband, the Rhodes Scholar and former president.
All too often, Hillary's preparation shows. And while preparation and knowing your stuff is a good thing, Americans punish you for not performing it well enough. We demand to be entertained. We need to actually believe this shit.
Which is why we reward total idiots with fame and glory, from John Edwards and Rod Blagojevich to that moron from Alaska. And I could go on, but I won't.
But spontaneity can get you into deep shit. And Hillary is clearly defensive of attacks from the press and her opposition -- not without cause, mind you. So she continues to do what any high-level, seasoned politician would and should do ... MUST DO and DOES DO ... and we punish her for it.
Sometimes I miss the "political" threads.
Agreed. Thanks everybody.
I would just reiterate that Hillary's morality isn't the point here, and taking up space to attack or defend her just invites responses that would destroy the thread. Thanks.
The reality is that most media is run by a handful of companies - Viacom, Newscorp, Time Warner, and Comcast - and these players have little interest in speaking truth to power. And schnitzie is spot on, lower newsroom budgets have led to younger, more inexperienced journalists who don't know how to or care to ask the tough questions.
Don't blame the politicians for taking advantage of this situation, they'd be crazy not to.
Sometimes I miss the "political" threads.
I think that the "news" certain outlets give page space/air time to is driven by some bias (or really, target audience capture considerations). Moreso on the editorial shows. O'Reilly talks about things fired up conservatives want to be outraged over. Maddow does the same for the left. There are stories that all my conservatives friends know about that I've never heard of and vice versa.
I just think the issue with this story and integrity issue is much more the access/laziness points I made. Go look at the Gawker piece. Ambinder is decently forthright in response. Calls this "transactional" reporting, which I think conceptually is that Great Dane was describing. Ambinder said he did it, wasnt pressured by Atlantic to do it, felt shitty about it, and is glad he got away from it.
The reality is that most media is run by a handful of companies - Viacom, Newscorp, Time Warner, and Comcast - and these players have little interest in speaking truth to power. And schnitzie is spot on, lower newsroom budgets have led to younger, more inexperienced journalists who don't know how to or care to ask the tough questions.
Don't blame the politicians for taking advantage of this situation, they'd be crazy not to.
There are other issues. Media shouldnt be competing based on capturing sub-segments of society. Is it good that we have the left wing news channel, the right wing news channel, and the hotel/airport news channel?
Quote:
on this. I didn't want to mention names and I agree that the Fox reporters are very good - reputable reporters. However, the parent organizations (not just Fox) are biased and deliver "news" with a slant that shows their bias and possible agenda. Maybe they always did.
Sometimes I miss the "political" threads.
I think that the "news" certain outlets give page space/air time to is driven by some bias (or really, target audience capture considerations). Moreso on the editorial shows. O'Reilly talks about things fired up conservatives want to be outraged over. Maddow does the same for the left. There are stories that all my conservatives friends know about that I've never heard of and vice versa.
I just think the issue with this story and integrity issue is much more the access/laziness points I made. Go look at the Gawker piece. Ambinder is decently forthright in response. Calls this "transactional" reporting, which I think conceptually is that Great Dane was describing. Ambinder said he did it, wasnt pressured by Atlantic to do it, felt shitty about it, and is glad he got away from it.
Ok, yep I agree and agree with your following post questioning why we need right and left news organizations. But as a business, Fox and NBC for example, are looking to make money so they pander to sub groups to sell ad time to companies that appeal to these groups.
Heck, I'm getting angry at the Supreme Court, an entity that should be totally apolitical
Problem is, it is not good for democracy that the news follows that model.
Problem is, it is not good for democracy that the news follows that model.
Bingo! Think it leads to the extremists in both parties or should I say it legitimizes them.
More like 45 years ago, when the majority of homes had 2nd TV sets. No more entire families watching Ed Sullivan with Topo Gigio, a juggler and the Beatles during the same hour.
As foretold in Network in 1977, when the news division was taken over by entertainment (Faye Dunaway).
Eh, whatever. To channel Brett, you old people creep me out.