home

The Media and Haircuts

This discussion between Glenn Greenwald and Ben Smith of the Politico regarding the Politico and the Media in general is interesting and I think provides lessons both for the Media and media critics.

Glenn Greenwald is, I think by general consensus, among the very best bloggers. His detail, research, piercing arguments and eye for an interesting story is virtually unmatched. And yet, Glenn's work on the Politico story did suffer from a weakness and Ben Smith picked up on it - the conflation of the politics of certain persons in the Politico management as a strong influence on the coverage. I don't think that is true and the charge took away from Glenn's powerful case. And it allowed Ben Smith to push away some of Glenn's powerful points.

To me, Glenn's indictment is unassailable on the grounds that Politico is run by John Harris, whose book with Mark Halperin decried the state of plitical reporting, and who now runs a news organization that is basically just one more cog in that he decried.

In his post on the session, Glenn wrote:

I thought the opportunity to be able to engage directly with the Politico reporter responsible for many of the most Drudge-promoted articles since The Politico's inception might be worthwhile. As the discussion unfolds, and it takes a little time for it it do so, I think it was worthwhile.

One point that I think is notable is that Smith --notwithstanding the series of highly questionable and Drudge-affirming articles he has churned out -- is no fire-breathing, Machiavellian, scheming right-wing operative. By all accounts, including from many people who are familiar with him and his pre-Politico journalism, he's perfectly decent and ethical and almost certainly not someone who subscribes to right-wing political views.

And yet there he is, producing "news" content that serves Matt Drudge's agenda as much as any other single working reporter . . . and a seemingly endless series of other items which focus on what his Editor-in-Chief, John Harris, described as the Drudge-ruled "attacked-based personality-obsessed politics that is the Freak Show's signature."

I think what this illustrates -- and this is now independent of Smith particularly -- is that what produces the type of "journalism" that merits such strong criticism often has nothing to do with any specific biases or motives of the individual reporter. Often, the causes that produce skewed or petty journalism are systemic, not individual malice or even individual political bias.

This is a critical insight and the problem that Ben Smith does not come to grips with. He simply thinks he is just reporting. He does not come to grips with the fact that his notion that 'folks want to know about the personalities of the candidates' is a weak excuse for the shoddy reporting of actual issues.

This is especially true of political reporting which seems designed to be devoid of discussion of actual issue coverage and, at best, does mainly "horserace" coverage.

That is what Ben Smith, at best, is only doing. Now there is a place for this type of news coverage. But it is, at best, the only political coverage the Media provides. And this can not be what the Media does. Someone in the Media needs to cover the issues in a campaign. And the Media simply does not.

I think this is separate and apart from the problem of access journalism that Glenn also brings up and that Ben Smith acknowledges. That is a serious problem in straight news coverage. But Politico does not do straight news coverage so the problems of the Politico and all political coverage are different.

Glenn's central point is that John Harris, the Editor of Politico, wrote a book "ostensibly decrying Drudge-ruled 'attacked-based personality-obsessed politics that is the Freak Show's signature,'" now runs a news organization that is engaging in "Drudge-ruled 'attacked-based personality-obsessed politics that is the Freak Show's signature.'"

The question is what are Harris and Smith doing? Why? Why does Harris decry it and then basically ignore his own critiques of political coverage?

Finally, there is something that will go unsaid by most folks, but I wlll say it - the Beltway political journalists that Politico has decided to rely on are just not very good. Roger Simon, Politico's Chief Political columnist is, well, not good imo.

I think one thing no one wants to consider is the possibility that maybe these folks, the Beltway political reporters, are just not very good.

We should criticize them for bad reporting of course, but I am not at all sure that cries of bias are to the point. Examining the systemic "freak show" problem of political reporting is essential of course, but the type of specific critiques that Glenn is expert at providing is the best remedy really. In essence proving the case over a period of time, as Glenn does, is the best medicine.

< Let The Eagle Soar | Rudy Paid Judi for Speechwriting >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I agree (2.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Stewieeeee on Fri May 18, 2007 at 09:54:40 AM EST
    Part of it is just laziness.

    The other part is salaciousness.

    The other thing that goes unsaid by most folks, or at least it is, i think a variable in this discussion, is the urge to dumb down to sell up.

    there may be nothing sinister about whatever politico does with john edwards's haircut, but it is damaging insofar the motivation has nothing to do with helping people become more informed on issues, but to just give them a quick hit headline and a facile piece of analysis.

    in short, it sells.

    i'll add this.  real insight can also sell.

    i'll add one more thing.  anything that's being said here can also be said about politico can also be said about huffpo.com.

    which just means that the problem isn't isolated to beltway laziness.


    I'll add one thing (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 18, 2007 at 10:02:48 AM EST
    "i'll add one more thing.  anything that's being said here can also be said about politico can also be said about huffpo.com."

    Speaking for here, I ask for specific examples.

    Rather lazy of you to not provide them.

    Parent

    They posted (none / 0) (#3)
    by Stewieeeee on Fri May 18, 2007 at 10:08:14 AM EST
    Obama's beach pics.

    Not sure what the point was in doing so.

    i can probably pull two headlines per day from huffpo.com that shows they're going for the quick hit.

    that doesn't mean some of the blog writing there along the left column isn't insightful.

    if ALL it was was leftist national enquirer, then i'd never go there.  it's more than that.

    but they're not above it either.

    Parent

    Speaking for here (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri May 18, 2007 at 10:17:00 AM EST
    Here being TalkLeft, any specific examples?

    Parent
    Of course not!!! (none / 0) (#5)
    by Stewieeeee on Fri May 18, 2007 at 10:38:00 AM EST
    And maybe i'm even wrong to group huffpo.com in with the progressive blogosphere proper.  i don't know enough about the progressive blogosphere to know if they consider huffpo part of the group (whatever anyone wants to call it.)

    but it's not of the beltway either.  or at least it claims not to be.

    Parent