Media tells stories THEY want to tell to people they don’t respect.

I think we make a mistake when we media consumers get angry over poor coverage or bad reporting of people or topics of interest. We assume that those doing the reporting simply don’t understand the topic or dislike the person. Maybe, maybe not. But I do think the media in general exhibit a profound dislike or at least disrespect of its readers and/or viewers. You know, the necessary evil to a reporter.

Rupert Murdoch says big media has only itself to blame for the situation it is in.

With newspapers cutting back and predictions of even worse times ahead, Rupert Murdoch said the profession may still have a bright future if it can shake free of reporters and editors who he said have forfeited the trust and loyalty of their readers.

“My summary of the way some of the established media has responded to the internet is this: it’s not newspapers that might become obsolete. It’s some of the editors, reporters, and proprietors who are forgetting a newspaper’s most precious asset: the bond with its readers,” said Murdoch. . .

Read the rest ->
——————-

Murdoch, whose company’s holdings also include MySpace and the Wall Street Journal, criticized what he described as a culture of “complacency and condescension” in some newsrooms.

“The complacency stems from having enjoyed a monopoly–and now finding they have to compete for an audience they once took for granted. The condescension that many show their readers is an even bigger problem. It takes no special genius to point out that if you are contemptuous of your customers, you are going to have a hard time getting them to buy your product. Newspapers are no exception.”
——————–

“A recent American study reported that many editors and reporters simply do not trust their readers to make good decisions. Let’s be clear about what this means. This is a polite way of saying that these editors and reporters think their readers are too stupid to think for themselves.”

Of course we’re too stupid. Think not? Well, watch any media person defend “journalism” and you’ll see some version of “we’re really good, but the people, they just don’t understand: our job, how we do our job, what’s really going on, how smart we have to be”, etc. etc. etc. Whenever you have to defend your intelligence because it’s not readily apparent, you’re in trouble.

Then, WaPo notes that many news outlets are offering BO commemorative news products. Is this a problem or just a way to make money?

Perhaps it was the announcement that NBC News is coming out with a DVD titled “Yes We Can: The Barack Obama Story.” Or that ABC and USA Today are rushing out a book on the election. Or that HBO has snapped up a documentary on Obama’s campaign.

Perhaps it was the Newsweek commemorative issue — “Obama’s American Dream” — filled with so many iconic images and such stirring prose that it could have been campaign literature. Or the Time cover depicting Obama as FDR, complete with jaunty cigarette holder.
Are the media capable of merchandizing the moment, packaging a president-elect for profit?

Yes, they are.

Seems to me WaPo doesn’t like this too much but just sees it as a tacky way to make a buck. I think it’s a bigger sell-out than that. After all, how do you offer a commemorative package if it has lots of real criticism and real vetting? Commemorative products don’t do that.

Kurtz goes on to list some of the more nauseating media Obama-worship, but unfortunately doesn’t offer much criticism.

Jennifer Rubin, though, has a comment.

The MSM championed Barack Obama throughout the primaries, clubbed his opponent, lauded him during the general election, and is now marveling at his transition. There’s no reason to stop now. If the mainstream media cared about unbiased reporting and exacting investigation, they would have made some effort earlier to balance the coverage. And now that the election of Obama has fulfilled their dreams and aspirations, why should they return to the humdrum tasks of quibbling with the press secretary, investing inter-agency squabbles, and questioning the lack of progress or the outright repudiation of campaign pledges? That might scuff up the President’s image. And it might put them on the outs with their hero.

Really, I think it’s too much to expect that the lapdog media will turn into attack-dogs or watchdogs anytime soon. After all, they have a President to help succeed.

Of course, Rubin is referring to Tweety’s assertion that it is his JOB to help out the Obama administration. Either Tweety is completely revising the definition of journalist or trying to get a running start on a potential Senate/lapdog seat, as has been rumored. If you haven’t already seen this example of high objective journalism in action, I suggest you watch.

Mediamatters has a piece on how the media is covering the rumors of HRC as SOS. Apparently, MSNBC is still bashing HRC whenever it can.

Discussing the possibility of Sen. Hillary Clinton becoming the secretary of state in President-elect Barack Obama’s administration on the November 14 edition of MSNBC’s Hardball, MSNBC political analyst Michelle Bernard asserted: “If she’s secretary of state, she will run a parallel government. It will be a huge problem.” Additionally, Jennifer Donahue, political director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics, asked: “Will she [Clinton] be laying out the groundwork should Obama have only one term? Will she be, in fact, trying to create only one term for Barack Obama?”

During the program, Bernard also said Clinton “could give him [Obama] some cover, and she could also walk — go around the world acting as if she is not the secretary of state but the United States — the president of the United States. That’s a huge danger for him. It’s a very, very high-level job.” Host Chris Matthews then asked Donahue, “[W]ould you trust her to be a loyal subordinate, or believe she would be a bit too aggressive as a colleague?”

Here’s some wisdom from Tweety and guest “journalists.”

Matthews sounds as if he is defending HRC, but that’s a deliberate ploy to keep the conversation going in the direction he wants. He later accuses HRC of looking at Biden as a roadblock as she tries to accumulate power. The theme of this “story?” How HRC is a power hungry steamroller trying to flatten everyone as she grasps for whatever she can find. Ugh. Journalism? No. Speculation and bad thinking. Standard fare with Tweety.

Mediamatters also has a VERY interesting page noting all the negative HRC statements and media stories saying that she is “out to get” or somehow destroy the Obama wagon. This is worth looking at. MM groups media “stories” into 3 categories, below which are specific examples from tv and print “journalists.”

Examples of media figures suggesting that Clinton would pursue her own agenda as secretary of state and not Obama’s

Examples of media figures referring to Clinton as Obama’s “enem[y]

Examples of media figures suggesting that Clinton might cause trouble for Obama if he does not include her in the administration

Here’s a video compilation of some “news” professionals.

The media obsession with the Clintons continues unabated and they make HRC or BC the story whenever possible.

What’s the takeaway here? Well, Murdoch, I feel, accurately diagnosed the major problem with the MSM. It’s lost the trust of viewers/readers. While journalists try to figure out why this has happened and continue to claim THEY are doing THEIR jobs well, others continue to point, fruitlessly, to video and print where journalists spout “received wisdom” rather than challenge assumptions.

For example, it’s long been the narrative that HRC is a grasping, power-mad, mutant woman who is intrinsically unfit for any trust. “Journalists” start out by faintly praising her experience and quickly move to their BUTS. But she’s a harpy, BUT she’s trying to take over, BUT she’s not a real woman, BUT, BUT, BUT. Then after playing the BUT card in some way, they move on to BC as a reason to distrust Hillary.

WTH? The very fact that the same narrative with respect to HRC plays again and again and again and again makes it sound very much like the “research” for the “story” consists of reading MooDoo or reviewing Chris Matthews’ video. Do ANY of these people challenge their own assumptions? Apparently not.

Given that, am I really surprised that NBC will be peddling a “Yes We Can” DVD? No. The “fourth estate” died from dehydration a while ago. If all they offer is slobbering praise on the one hand, out of control vitriol on the other and still manifest arrogance and condescension, I’m surprised they’ve lasted this long. Because of all their assertions that America will somehow be lessened if big media isn’t accorded respect by those they cover and those who “consume” their “product,” I hope they die out sooner rather than later. It certainly won’t be the end of news or of investigative research and reporting.

Despite being in the business of exposing other people, the media is myopic about itself. The continuing pushback by media personnel to those criticizing their performance certainly suggests they don’t get it at all. Somewhere during the “professionalizing” of journalism, journalists came to believe that they were not only specialists in news gathering but in news understanding. That part was always supposed to be left to the reader/viewer. Not anymore.

Any chance this economic downturn will result in fewer “professional news” outlets?