Thursday, January 12, 2006

More Media

Now I know why they called it 'yellow' journalism.

This is really a follow up on the Rebuild New Orleans Masterplan, and the way it is covered in the media. There are even more examples today.

I'm going to pick on MSNBC because, frankly, I expect more of them than this. Now, some of you may wonder, "what's the big deal with this article?" It goes with something Dante said in the comments section of the earlier post: The New Orleans story is very important to a lot of Americans. Many of us have family and friends that were affected. In a more 'bottom line' way of looking at it, a lot of American treasure (tax dollars) has been and is going to be spent down there, and a lot of folks (rightly) want to make sure that this money 1) gets where it needs to go and 2) isn't wasted by building up parts of the city that will get flooded again. Flood me once, shame on you. Flood me twice...

Are any of those questions answered by the MSNBC article? No. As a matter of fact, the headlines only point out the problems people are having with the plans. Sounds like just enough spin to stir thing up and dissillusion Americans from really following what is going on there.

Luckily, the Times-Picaynue has a vested interest in this issue, and gives a comprehensive look at what went on. And, from clicking around on NOLA, I was also able to find the homepage of the committees writing the plan. But I'd have never found that from MSNBC alone. I'd bet a small cabbage that it ain't gonna make the New York Whines this Sunday either.

Again, just another way the lazy national media is asleep at the wheel.

But I'm not just one of those "everything is all bad" cats who isn't gonna show you the way things is supposed to be done. Here's some good stuff, and again, these next few links show off how blogs can do today what the National Media is supposed to be doing.

A lot of the left may hate me for it, and Lord knows I don't agree with him a whole lot, but it is little gems like these that make me an avid reader of Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit himself.

And a lot of the left may hate me for this, too, but I love that there are Democrats like Sid Cottingham, still out there fighting for the Southern Soul of the Party, and regulatin' on the national scene with articles like this.

And I do so adore MSNBC's blogwatcher Clicked, who actually points out things like this for those of us who would never run across it on our own.

And I love pure, unadulterated commentary, and my ability to access it with links. Especially when annoying fellas like Hack Buchannan start taking victory laps before election season. Earth to Hack: SAWB could get confirmed against that panel of geniuses. I guess RARRR must be feeling really big right now winning what was widely thought of as a foregone conclusion, no matter how hard of a pill it is for my side to swallow, we've got to choke it down and move on to more important things. Alito confirmed, sky still blue, water still wet. Have fun on that victory lap.


Dante said...

Just to be fair, after saying that the rebuilding of New Orleans is a national story, I did say, "Newsworthy stories coming out of that reigon right now should be covered by in-house reporters instead of just ripping articles off the AP wire." (emphasis mine)

This to me does not look like a newsworthy New Orleans story at the national level. Of interest to the great unwashed masses in our country is the handling of money and how the event in New Orleans affects them personally.

Quite frankly, this is a fluff piece. There's really not any important news about New Orleans right now so MSNBC trots this AP article out there so that:
a) They don't have to do any real reporting.
b) They can keep New Orleans in the headlines so that MSNBC can pretend that they care about the plight of New Orleans.

If there weren't such an uproar over silly things like America not caring about New Orleans or New Orleans response times being so poor because of New Orleans' large black population, the MSM might actually give this story a break for a while until there's some really real news to report.

Patrick Armstrong said...

Well, I obviously disagree about the newsworthiness of the piece, but I might just be a little biased towards the media's attention to stuff that goes on in New Orleans.

I think the story is newsworthy for many reasons, many of which I have already outlined, (making sure the money actually helps the people, seeing that American tax dollars aren't wasted, etc) but the same things that make it newsworthy to me don't necessarily make it newsworthy to everyone.

I understand that.

I still think its a shoddy job by the media. And if they're doing a shoddy job on this story (that I find newsworthy) I know that they're also doing a shoddy job on other stories (ones that you find newsworthy).

Maybe I overstated the importance of this story to everyone, and some ill editing on my part may misrepresent what Dante said (my bust) but it is, I think, a good example of what is wrong with the media. It doesn't matter what story you find newsworthy, the news isn't going to cover it adequately.

Dante said...

I think you nailed what I said. I just think I tossed a qualifier in there that was easy to gloss over. And as far as newsworthiness goes, this is not an article about the plan in question or even the current state of the implementation of that plan. THAT would be newsworthy but it's already been covered pretty recently. This is an article about how some residents do not like the plan in question. That should be obivous and is hardly news. Some of the millions of people who lived in New Orleans will not like the rebuilding plan no matter what is done.

patsbrother said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
patsbrother said...

paT, you appear to go out of your way to fill every trope of the disgruntled loser regarding the Alito thing. Everything Pat Buchannan said is either true or well-supported opinion. Congratulations! You are the whiney liberal.

[Tangent: what he says about Catholics is true: there will soon be only three Protestants on the Supreme Court bench of this most Protestant of nations. Anti-papists beware.]

For those who fear a conservative bench will strip away your Constitutional rights: vote. Encourage others to do so. Don't hedge your bets on what the Founders purposefully made the weakest of the three branches of government (the one in relation to which I hope to find gainful employment soon!). The national legality of abortion is "Constitutionally" supported by nothing more than at least five justices' adherence to legal precedent and adherence to a decision that ruled Americans have a Constitutional right to privacy, a concept nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. If the nationwide legality of abortion is precious to you, work toward securing it through legislation or a Constitutional amendment. Don't moan about the end of the world when five (extremely intelligent)people today disagree with what at least five (extremely intelligent) people decided decades ago. "But you can't mess with settled law!" you say. SCOTUS has and will again. Infrequently, yes, but things change.

If you, too, are concerned by the putative conservative religious takeover, there is always hope: this country survived the Great Awakening and the Second Great Awakening ("The road to hell is paved with the skulls of unbaptized babies" anyone? Anyone?); I'm certain we can weather the First Great McChurch.

Patrick Armstrong said...

I'm the whiny liberal becase Hack Buchannan is taking a victory lap for something I called back in October?

Quoteth I: "You know what we should really do, out here on the left? Give the Court to Them.

That's right, I said it. They can freakin' have it. "Mr. Marshall has made his decision, now let us see him enforce it." That was Andrew Jackson, putting the Cherokee on the Trail of Tears, even when the Supreme Court said he couldn't.

'Cause the Supreme Court guarantees us nothing. Using it as the "crutch" of civil liberties has worked out so well for us, hasn't it? We put all our eggs in the one basket that is verified by the one we gave up and nominated by the one we can't win. Maybe, just maybe, if we try to bring ideas to America and her people as opposed to just filing lawsuits against the Pledge of Allegiance, they'd be more receptive to what we had to say.

My $0.02

Thank you for paying attention.

Alito's confirmation was about as much in doubt as Jittery Joe's serving coffee sometime tomorrow morning. Let me get my surprised face on! That's what makes Buchannans' victory lap so funny.

Heckfire, if you got up and ran around 5 Points yelling, "Jittery Joes is serving coffee this morning, what a victory for me and America!" with anything that passed for sincerity, I'd pee my pants laughing.

S.A.W.B. said...


I'm inclined to believe that for once, Pat Buchanan's victory lap was run merely to spite the Ted Kennedy's and the Nancy Pelosi's that currently pass for the 'leadership' on your end of the pool. Had it not gone against every 'Christian' principle that Pat holds near and true, he'd have run the lap with his wang out.

This would be a non-story, had the Democratic leadership not pressed and pressed and dug and dug to try and find anything resembling dirt on soon-to-be Justice Alito.

What is an amazing story, is the political end-around that GWB has pulled off in getting two more or less ideal conservative judges seated on the SCOTUS. I fully believe that the Harriet Meiers nomination was a sacrifical one, intended to draw out the wolves on both sides, while behind the scenes, Sam Alito was being prepped for nomination. Sheer brilliance, from a man not given enough credit for political shrewdness...

Patrick Armstrong said...

Rovian Political Psychology. The man is genius. Called that back in October too.

I'll post some thoughts on the Senate Judiciary in the morning...

patsbrother said...

First: If "Alito's confirmation was about as much in doubt as Jittery Joe's serving coffee sometime tomorrow morning," then Buchannan's victory lap was entirely justified. paT places far too much confidence in the Jittery Joe's employment pool and baristas' abilities both to get up in the morning and to locate keys.

Second: as to Rovian psychology: I suppose if the ancients wanted a better explanation of lightning and could come up with Jove, moderns can look at serendipity and come up with Rove. If you really believe there are John Does out there who can ineluctably manipulate not only Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman's free volition but that of the enitre American populous, then you are perhaps more of the frou-frou conspiracy theorists than I thought.

Miers was, simply, a mistake made while Rove was out of the office worrying about covering his own ass. One of Bush's faults is his intense loyalty to his friends, whether they are effective public servants or not. It flies in the face of the man's character to assume he threw a close friend, a woman, to the wolves as a curveball to stir up more controversy than his true choice and as a possible wedge between himself and his base. It would be an affront not only to Bush's sense of loyalty but to the man's sense of chivalry.

It is as if y'all and Bush are splitting Melvin Udall's definition of a woman: you think of a man, and then you take away reason (y'all) and accountability (him).