...or are they dumber then they ought to be? From a New Yorker piece on the MSM:
A few days before my visit, the [Chicago] Tribune’s Sunday magazine had published a memoir by a woman who had been unable to get health insurance because she suffers from depression. [Tribune editor] Lipinski walked across her office to her desk and played back a voice-mail message she had received in response to the story. A woman’s voice said, “I’m really quite disgusted with the article on the uninsured. I think it’s very socialistic. Health care is not a right in this country. We are not Sweden and we are not Canada. I do not like these heart-tugging stories about people who don’t have health care. . . . Are you a socialist? . . . I do not appreciate these insipid little stories that say, ‘Oh, this poor person who doesn’t have health care.’ . . . I know friends and family who are really upset with the leftist tendencies of your coverage.” At this point, the voice-mail system timed out; it sounded as if the woman would gladly have kept going. “I get surprised,” Lipinski said. “Even something like this is seen through a political lens, rather than as, Here’s somebody with a different experience from me.” (emphasis added)
I, as a matter of course, would view such stories through a political lens. Are not such stories at least implicitly advocating something? 99% of the time the answer is of course they are. The idea that Tribune reporters and editors are putting these pieces together with no other thought than to tell an interesting story is laughable on its face.
When, before the election, the Washington Post launched a huge multi-part story on what its like to grow up gay in Oklahoma, were we to ignore the obvious political relevance that carried for the issue of gay marraige? Were we to think it was totally coincidental? Of course not.
If the MSM really believe this is a good example of how they are being unfairly treated I think I'm gonna have to tell them to grow-up and wise-up.
3 comments:
I think that is ironic that members of the MSM, who view the world through a political lens, would be surprised that most people do as well. One difference is that so-called "ordinary folks" don't necessarily see such a worldview as overtly political, but are more likely to see it as part of their larger value system. When I was a professor, the point I would always try and drive home to students was that everything is political. (The best exercise to show them this is to ask them to name five things that are affected by government. After they do that, I asked them to name five things that are not affected by government. They could never even get one).
Of course, in reading the New Yorker piece, I find it even more ironic, though not unexpected, to find Karl Rove, a master of misinformation, complaining about the accuracy of reporting.
Walt
You know, I've never been able to make up my mind exactly as to whether the Tribune editor was being serious in that remark or if it was a "party line." Its pretty damning either way. Either she's naively ignorant about how people view the world around them, or she is being duplicitous. An idiot or a liar, which would you rather be?
As for Rove, I thought the article treated him extremely fairly. (Too fairly maybe?) But hey, if you are the master of misinformation, complaiing about the news is the first (and last) weapon in your arsenal.
I don't know if I would go so far as to call them idiots or liars, but it is amazing how insulated some journalists, particularly editors, can be. Much like college professors, they don't really have a good sense of what "ordinary folks" are thinking, because they simply have little daily contact with the non-elite class. They likely live in a well-to-do suburb, socialize at power parties, have their own parking spot so they drive in, etc. Also, I would expect they work very long hours. So the contact they have with people outside their small world is minimal.
A friend of mine who worked with journalists used to say "News is what the editors see on their way to work in the morning." I don't think it's original with him, but it's a liine I've always loved. My favorite example of that is from the Washington Post, which ran a cutesy story of a mother duck leading her flock through the city streets down to the river. It was either front page A section, or front page Metro section, I can't remember. But I thought to myself, "Why in God's name is this even in the paper?" Then I looked closer at the story and where the ducks' journey began. After a mapquest search, I found out, sure enough, that it began outside the Washington Post building. Why not mention that little fact? Probably because they didn't want it to seem that their news collection effort in this particular instance amounted to them looking out the window. But I guess I'm just too cynical to not appreciate a cute story about freakin' ducks.
I agree that Rove was treated fairly, but I did get the sense that some of his complaints about the article he lambasted the editors about were less about the strength of the Republican party efforts and more about him. That is, he wanted them to portray the efforts he spearheaded as more consquential, so he would get more credit ("Hey, look at me, look at what I did!"). Just my sense of the situation based on a very limited account (and I naturally tend to be suspicious of Rove).
Walt
Post a Comment