It's the Media, Stupid.
www.dailyhowler.com: Yes, it’s time to take a
searching look at the work of “younger journalists”
like these—to look at the “provocative” young scribes
who are “grabbing the attention of the media
establishment.” We were repulsed by their cowardice
four years ago, and we can’t help but notice them
drifting again. So read Kurtz’s column and tell us the
truth: Do you really see three brave young reporters? Or might you see three self-serving scribes, looking ahead to Millionaire Pundit Days, selling you straight down the river?
Break the Bush Cabal Stranglehold on the "US
Mainstream News Media," Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh050304.shtml
THE THREE AMIGOS! Howard Kurtz profiles three
brilliant young scribes. How come they don’t seem so
brilliant?
MONDAY, MAY 3, 2004
THE THREE AMIGOS: Wow! Here at THE HOWLER, we are
always on the prowl for fresh new journalistic
talent—the kind of hot new blood which might shake up
our disordered, script-reading “press corps.” That’s
why our analysts all perked up when they saw Howard
Kurtz’ column this morning. “Fresh on The Page And Hot
On the Trail,” the headline said on his weekly piece.
Early on, the Post scribe promised to give us just
what we’ve been seeking:
KURTZ: Every presidential contest produces a crop of
younger journalists who grab the attention of the
media establishment through dogged reporting,
sparkling writing or provocative analysis—often in
multiple forums these days.
Wow! And Kurtz had found three such stars, he said.
Our analysts settled back in their seats, prepared to
enjoy the talented trio’s “dogged reporting” and
“provocative analysis.”
But their smiles quickly faded away when they saw what
Kurtz was actually pimping. One of his stars is Liz
Marlantes, a reporter for the Christian Science
Monitor. She “profiled the much-profiled [John] Kerry
in November,” Kurtz enthused. But here’s the kind of
“provocative analysis” this brilliant new star gave
her readers:
KURTZ: Marlantes rendered Kerry as “a product of
exclusive schools and a relatively blue-blooded
lineage,” with a “somewhat mannered style” and
“anchorman’s head of hair.” But rather than echo the
conventional wisdom that Kerry was a political corpse,
she wrote: “Under the glare and strain of a
hard-fought campaign, some say, Kerry’s preparedness
may start to pay off.”
Low, mordant chuckles filled our great halls. Yikes!
Marlantes’ “provocative analysis” included hackneyed
notes about Kerry’s hair and mannered style. Quickly,
Kurtz acknowledged the truth. “The 30-year-old writer
has caused a stir not for her Monitor articles but for
her appearance—and smooth performance—on a spate of
television programs,” he admitted. “She doesn’t deny
that being an attractive young woman helps.” In short,
Marlantes hasn’t “grabbed the attention of the media
establishment” because of any “provocative analyses.”
Marlantes has caught the press corps’ eye because she
is young and good-looking.
But then, when we checked out the rest of the Talented
Three, we found other puzzling problems. According to
Kurtz, the New Republic’s Ryan Lizza has also caught
the press corps’ eye. But here was one example of the
fresh new scribe’s brilliant analyses:
KURTZ: Lizza’s writing doesn’t always endear him to
his subjects. After writing “Free Fall” last summer—a
piece likening the Kerry campaign to a 1990s tech
stock—Lizza says he got an expletive-filled e-mail
from a Kerry staffer telling him never to call again.
(They’ve since made amends.)
Oops! Since Kerry went on to win the Democratic
nomination, Lizza’s “analysis” only had one small
flaw—it had been completely inaccurate! On the plus
side, when Lizza predicted the Kerry demise, he was
saying what the rest of the press corps was saying.
Does the press corps really love scribes who
“provoke?” Or does the press corps love scribes who
conform?
Finally, Kurtz gave us Slate’s Will Saletan. Frankly,
if the quoted analyses had been more provocative, we
would have put in a coma:
KURTZ: William Saletan specializes in what he calls
“spin analysis.” As Slate magazine’s chief political
correspondent, Saletan posts witty, attitude-filled
dispatches that critique, and often skewer, the
candidates. After the president’s last news
conference, Saletan wrote that Bush just “says the
same thing today that he said yesterday” and is
“blind” to external reality.
“I’m not burdened like a lot of daily folks by having
to appear objective,” says Saletan, 39, who has also
written for the Times, appeared on National Public
Radio and published a book on the battle over
abortion. “I feel at liberty to just say out loud what
other reporters are saying under their breath.”
Not that Saletan is easy on the Democrats: “I pounded
the hell out of Kerry during the primaries. I hit the
argument about his ‘electability’ for two or three
weeks, proving that people like me have no effect.
Kerry never walks into a sentence without leaving
himself a way out—‘I was for the war, but not this
war’—and he’s a lousy salesman.”
When it comes to Bush and Kerry, Kurtz finds Saletan
reciting pure conventional wisdom. How “provocative”
is the Slate scribe? By his own account, he “feels at
liberty” to say out loud what other reporters are
already thinking! Oh, freedom! Are you really
surprised when the corps loves a guy who says what
they already think?
For the record, we were struck by Kurtz’s piece
because we were going there anyway. All this week,
we’re going to offer an overview of the way this
election is now being covered. More specifically,
we’re going to look at the New York Times—at the odd
coverage it seems to be offering. Yes, we’re going to
watch as the paper of record seems to shout and
cheerlead for Bush. And we’re going to ask a question
you’ll rarely see asked by “provocative” scribes of
the type Kurtz describes. We’re going to ask why the
New York Times has now done this for two straight
elections.
Readers, you may know the background. Four years ago,
the press corps made a sick joke of your White House
election, trashing Gore for twenty straight months and
thereby putting Bush in the White House. And while
this happened, the “provocative” types Kurtz praises
today sat around and said nothing about it! The New
Republic never opened its mouth; Saletan (and Slate)
barely offered a peep. These “provocative” fellows sat
on their hands while the press made a joke of your
interests. We’re going to ask you why that
occurred—and why it seems to be happening again.
Yes, it’s time to take a searching look at the work of
“younger journalists” like these—to look at the
“provocative” young scribes who are “grabbing the
attention of the media establishment.” We were
repulsed by their cowardice four years ago, and we
can’t help but notice them drifting again. So read
Kurtz’s column and tell us the truth: Do you really
see three brave young reporters? Or might you see
three self-serving scribes, looking ahead to
Millionaire Pundit Days, selling you straight down the
river?
GOOD PUNDITS BELIEVED ALL THAT STUFF: Why does the
press corps love Ryan Lizza? Because he offered a
“provocative” prediction about Kerry’s campaign—which
turned out to be completely inaccurate! But so what!
This press corps doesn’t care if you’re right. As
we’ve seen again and again, the Washington “press
corps” only cares if you repeat their conventional
wisdom.
For the record, when it comes to bungled predictions,
Saletan can play the game too. In fact, he totally
bungled the 2000 race as late as October 2000:
KURTZ: Saletan says he isn’t “trying to break news”
and rarely hits the campaign trail: “My excuse is I’ve
got a 1-year-old and a 3-year-old. I plead guilty to
armchair quarterbacking.”
Instead, he delivers punch-in-the-nose commentary
(once writing that Dean can be a “jerk”) and bold
predictions—including one that blew up on him. “I’m
still humiliated by having said ‘Bush is toast’ four
years ago. I’m kind of embarrassed by my support for
the war. I believed all the stuff about WMD.” Still,
he says, “you’ve got to take risks.”
Yes, Saletan wrote that “Bush is toast” with weeks to
go in Campaign 2000. (We’ll examine the reasons later
this week.) But then, to judge from the passage above,
Saletan doesn’t just bungle elections. He also
“believed all the stuff about WMD,” the provocative
analyst sheepishly says. Meanwhile, Saletan seems to
think he was “taking a risk” about WMD when he said
what every insider said! Can you start to see why the
mainstream press just loves the scribe’s “dogged
reporting?”
Go ahead and read Kurtz’s piece. But ask yourselves
this: Are you reading about three “provocative”
scribes? Or is Kurtz describing compliant
script-readers? All week, we’ll examine the way the
coverage of Campaign 04 is unfolding. And we’ll wonder
why “provocative analysts” of this type never seem to
say one word about it.