Friday, June 19, 2009
Can't help it
The ethical issues presented when a reporter writes about someone to whom he or she is romantically attracted have, of course, been much in the news. They arise whenever the President is covered by Chris Mathews ("I felt a tingle going up the leg"), Evan Thomas ("He's sort of God"), Ezra Klein ("he is the triumph of word over flesh"), etc.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
I don't delete many comments but that one was just too stupid to tolerate. The point is not that they are "gay" (give me an example of a woman journalist who has said the same type of over the top things about Obama - has to be one - and I'll gladly add it.)but that they have lost all objectivity. You don't know me and don't have the courage to identify yourself. As such, I don't need to allow you to indulge your stereotypes about what I "must" think here.
Yeah, feeling an emotional reaction to something someone says and having sex with them is totally the same. I still remember when I lost my virginity to Martin Luther King, Jr. -- truly memorable.
Should've stuck with the previous post on this topic -- that truly was a good one.
Nope, Rick. If it were a female journalist, she would be an example, not a joke. You, my friend, were making a joke. And a rather common one at that.
Don't forget Rich Lowry's Boehner.
The ability of the Left to conjure up humorless righteous indignation rivals anything Jerry Fallwell could do on his best days.
Rick --
You think there is nuance and ambiguity in the journalism ethics issue here? Really?
The ability of the Left to conjure up humorless righteous indignation rivals anything Jerry Fallwell could do on his best days.
Call me Jerry Falwell; but how dare you call me humorless.
Common or not, it was a joke and not to be taken literally. I would, incidentally, think that the infatuation of people like Thomas and Matthews is funny even were I an Obama fan. Heck, I would think it is funny if I were Obama. (I also might find it scary. The only living beings that I can handle thinking I'm sort of God are my dogs. And that's only because it is their evolutionary strategy.)
Infatuation and worship are different than sexual desire. Your joke turned on a punch line in which three non-gay men reveal themselves to be, in fact, sexually attracted to another man. Ha ha.
Of course the joke isn't literal, and maybe it doesn't even reveal your true colors (though it was your joke). But the impulse behind the joke is no laughing matter.
Sandra
Actually if you really want to be literal, the Thomas-Matthews-Klein infatuation is just like whatever ethical lapse McBride committed if you believe her claim that she hd no conscious romantic feelings for Flynn at the time she wrote.
But the larger issue is that you seriously need to lighten up. The point is that Matthews, etc, have lost their objectivity with respect to Obama every bit as much (even if ultimately for a different reason) as McBride is accused to have with Flynn.
I have heard - as I am sure you have - people respond to others over the top praise of someone else with the suggestion that the smitten person "get a room." Even if he or she is of the same gender as the adulations's object, the quip is about their infatuation - not that they have revealed themselves to have a homosexual attraction. (Indeed, only Mathews comment has any sexual connotation. We normally don't regard our actual or potenital sexual partners as almost divine.)
Everything in the world is does not involve your perceived or preferred injustices about which, believe it or not, not everyone else is obsessed.
But, you know, anything to snipe at someone you don't agree with. Sheez.
Rick,
Many circumstances present nuance. The issue of journalism ethics presented here is not one of them. Your suggestion that blurriness on the outer edges of what constitutes a writer's bias make this a close call or a puzzle are dishonest.
Wherever the outer edge is, McBride disgraced herself as a journalist without any possible question. The main story here is about how an aggressive, often judgmental self-described journalist and teacher of the art showed herself to be a simple fraud.
And then Bruce Murphy's astonishing indifference or tepid defense, however one sees it, transforms the magazine's role in the community, relegating it to a meaningless tabloid that disclaims the conventions and ethics of the profession.
Sure the sex party is, well, sexy. The serious story is about 2 mushroom clouds hanging over Milwaukee's journalism community.
Indeed, only Mathews comment has any sexual connotation. We normally don't regard our actual or potenital sexual partners as almost divine.
It was you who used the comments as evidence of romantic attraction, Rick, not me. And you who made the joke (though you seem now to be backing away from it). I merely pointed out the punch line. It's an unfunny joke that denigrates a group of people in order to make a cheap political point. What's light about that?
(I have only ever heard the phrase "get a room" directed at embracing lovers, and I'm a linguist who studies idioms! The phrase tells an amorous couple to continue their activities in private --- if directed at two nongay men, it would of course carry an accusation of homosexuality.)
But, you know, anything to snipe at someone you don't agree with. Sheez.
Need I even point out the ridiculously blatant hypocrisy in this statement, given the post to which these comments respond?
There was that (female) journalist who offered in a peridical back in the '90's to fellatiate President Clinton because he'd protected her right to abortion: I think it's fair to say she wouldn't be able to cover his Administration objectively. And there's already been an article suggesting that the fawning media and President Obama "get a room," at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/bronstein/detail?entry_id=41380.
Sandra needs to expand her studies. There's nothing worse than a narrow-minded linguist.
It's an unfunny joke that denigrates a group of people in order to make a cheap political point.
Rick's post merely indicated that the named journalists labor under an ethical dilemma no less severe than McBride's. Given the comments each cited journalist made, I wouldn't trust their opinions, let alone their reporting, about Obama. They've got too much personal investment in him at this point. Same for McBride, relative to Flynn. How is that "a cheap political point'?
I have only ever heard the phrase "get a room" directed at embracing lovers, and I'm a linguist who studies idioms!
The Editor-at-Large of the SF Chronicle, of all papers, might disagree, "Love or lust, Obama and the fawning press need to get a room". Which gets us, I think, back to Rick's initial point. The quoted comments are creepy. Period. I have the same reaction to their authors I have to McBride for her adolescent swooning: they'll bend over backward to make a cheap political point if it favors the object of their affection.
Bob Somerby had it right ages ago: "Chris Matthews, at heart, is a thigh-rubbing man." But this remark was directed at Matthews' Bush-fluffing commentary, and his endlessly salacious turn of mind whenever Hillary was the topic.
From May 1, 2003:
What’s the importance of the president’s amazing display of leadership tonight?
...That’s the president looking very much like a jet, you know, a high-flying jet star...
He won the war. He was an effective commander. Everybody recognizes that, I believe, except a few critics...
The president there-look at this guy! We’re watching him. He looks like he flew the plane. He only flew it as a passenger, but he’s flown...
Isn’t he saying, Ann here, "you guys try to do this. Howard Dean, Joe Lieberman, Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, Al Sharpton"?
So, yeah, he can be creepy and a bloviating geyser of hero-worship. But it's more than a little convenient for a conservative commentator to only notice that now.
Let's see if Matthews later becomes as brutal critic of Obama as he was when things went bad in the previous Administration.
The difference, duh, is that we know about some biases, ege, mathews, because the journalist doesn't hide them.
Rick's post merely indicated that the named journalists labor under an ethical dilemma no less severe than McBride's.
My focus has been on the way the point was made -- through a gay joke -- not the point itself.
To the underlying point: "Objectivity" is a horrible aim for journalists; it leads them away from the truth. McBride's ethical lapse, if there was any, pertains not to objectivity (as this post suggests), but to disclosure.
And my only concern with the now-public affair is for that little girl, which means I hope people stop talking about it and that her two obviously ambitious parents start focusing their ambitions inward, on their marriage and their parenting.
if you believe her claim that she hd no conscious romantic feelings for Flynn at the time she wrote
Except when she writes to him, "I think there was something from the moment we locked eyes in Anne's office" (Anne being the MPD spokesperson). That's a personal, one-on-one connection she felt, not an emotional reaction or impression she got from something impressive that he said or did.
(even if ultimately for a different reason)
So there's really no basis for the post except your perception that a significant portion of the media has lost objectivity (or at least enough of it to be reasonable journalists) when it comes to Obama.
In other words, the link between the two, in your mind, is in the effect rather than the cause -- and you're opening line about "The ethical issues presented when a reporter writes about someone to whom he or she is romantically attracted" was, well, bunk from the start. Already knew it, but good to hear you say it.
It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can’t get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.
John Hinderaker
Sandra: To the underlying point: "Objectivity" is a horrible aim for journalists; it leads them away from the truth. McBride's ethical lapse, if there was any, pertains not to objectivity (as this post suggests), but to disclosure.
Provocative point, to be sure. But if Sandra is correct, then there's precious little to distinguish the blushing McBride from the Obamaphile journalists. None are ethically tainted in Sandra's view. (I tend to think that all are ethically challenged, but that's an irrelevant detail. Put aside, too, the matter and timing of disclosure, just another detail at this level of discussion.) Ultimately, then, Sandra seemingly agrees with the idea behind Rick's post, that there's precious little to distinguish McBride from the Obamaphiles.
Anonymous: So there's really no basis for [Rick's] post except your perception that a significant portion of the media has lost objectivity (or at least enough of it to be reasonable journalists) when it comes to Obama.
No, it's that the same standard ought to apply across the board.
So there's really no basis for the post except your perception that a significant portion of the media has lost objectivity (or at least enough of it to be reasonable journalists) when it comes to Obama.
Yep, while framed as a 'if you ring up McBride you also need to ring up the journalists who have expressed an emotional reaction to Obama,' it's now admitted the post is just another tired, run of the mill claim of media bias.
it's that the same standard ought to apply across the board.
Deal.
Anon 11:19
I regret that got past me for 24 years. I guess sexism really is a one way street.
Sandra
I was going to suggest that you add google to your research tools but Brother Tryroler beat me to it.
If, in fact, you are a linguist then I would hope you appreciate the drawbacks of an overweening literalism. If you are an academic, I hope that you understand the value of the presumption of good faith. To compare the unreasoning adulation of Matthews, et al, to a romantic attraction is not to literally suggest sexual desire.
Clutch
That is probably true about Matthews. He's homer.
Anon 11:48.
Reagan is dead. I was around during the Reagan administration and his press coverage was hardly fawning back then notwithstanding to comments of David Gergen. In fact, the phrase "teflon president" meant, not that nothing was thrown at him, but that nothing would stick. In any event, I don't recall him being compared to God.
No, it's that the same standard ought to apply across the board.
And just to deal with this more directly, the point is that if the cause of McBride's alleged breach of journalistic ethics is not the same as the cause of the other commentators alleged breach of journalistic ethics, then the relationship between the two is only in the supposed effect.
And, of course, the real argument is in the cause, not the effect; that is, if you are able to convince someone of the cause, then there is no debate when it comes to the effect -- if you believe McBride or the commentators covering Obama lost a reasonable level of objectivity, then you're also going to believe that's going to make their coverage bias (and whether you think that's a good/bad/inevitable thing is really a separate issue).
Put differently, it's entirely logical and reasoned to feel that McBride violated journalistic ethics while holding that the other commentators Rick mentions did not since the cause of the allegations of ethical violations are not the same; however, Rick didn't present it that way in the post, where he made them appear one in the same.
I was around during the Reagan administration and his press coverage was hardly fawning back then notwithstanding to comments of David Gergen.
You lived during the Reagan administration! Wow. I guess that ends it.
I was going to suggest that you add google to your research tools but Brother Tryroler beat me to it.
Another joke. Ha ha.
The example supports my definition.
If, in fact, you are a linguist [in fact I am!] then I would hope you appreciate the drawbacks of an overweening [?] literalism. If you are an academic [in fact I am!], I hope that you understand the value of the presumption of good faith.
Again, Rick, you made the joke -- a joke that would have no punch line, no surprise factor, were you not claiming that three men have romantic attractions for another man. You yourself point out that two of the phrases do not even imply romantic desires, which means you manufactured the desires to make the joke. I merely, as they say, got it!
I understand that whay people say and how they say it matters.
David Gergen: "A lot of the Teflon came from the press. They didn't want to go after him that toughly. ... There is no question in my mind there was more willingness to give Reagan the benefit of the doubt than there was [for Presidents] Carter or Ford."
The Shepherd: I was around during the Reagan administration and his press coverage was hardly fawning back then notwithstanding to comments of David Gergen.
The Herd: Yeah, phff, what does Reagan's first White House communications director know, anyway? Rick was around!
According to a recent Pew study:
As he marks his 100th day in office, President Barack Obama has enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George Bush during their first months in the White House, according to a new study of press coverage.
Overall, roughly four out of ten stories, editorials and op ed columns about Obama have been clearly positive in tone, compared with 22% for Bush and 27% for Clinton in the same mix of seven national media outlets during the same first two months in office, according to a study by the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism.
The study found positive stories about Obama have outweighed negative by two-to-one (42% vs. 20%) while 38% of stories have been neutral or mixed.
Robert Samuelson provides a good explanation why such adoring coverage is gravely concerning, no matter your political leanings -- at least, if you value journalistic independence. (Shorter version: "The press should not be hostile; but it ought to be skeptical.")
According to a recent Pew study:
Why the different Obama focus?
The different focus for Obama coverage may well reflect the reality that his first days in office have been very different from his predecessors. In response to the fears of a widespread economic meltdown—perhaps the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression—he has moved aggressively and quickly with a series of major and sometimes transformative economic initiatives.
On February 10, his Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner unveiled the financial sector bailout package known as TARP II. Three days later, Congress passed the White House-supported $787 billion stimulus package. On February 18, Obama went to Phoenix and announced a housing market plan estimated to ultimately cost up to $275 billion. On February 24, Obama delivered a major prime-time speech to Congress on the economy that was largely designed for consumption in America’s living rooms. Two days later, he unveiled a $3.6 billion budget that dramatically re-ordered the nation’s domestic priorities. Then in late March, Geithner came forward with a detailed plan to deal with “toxic assets” in the banking sector.
It seems likely that the strategic nature of Obama’s coverage, and the focus on his leadership, is inextricably linked to the breakneck pace of his initiatives—some of which required Congressional approval and some of which did not. Given the sheer volume of news generated by the President, much of the media’s focus—rather than detailing the ideological or philosophical underpinnings of Obama’s decisions—has been devoted to assessing how well he is doing. Put simply: Is he winning or losing?
In early 2009, the press seemingly tried to answer that question hour-by-hour and day-by -day. One way of evaluating that was to examine the President’s track record with Congress. That was certainly the case with the hotly debated stimulus package that ultimately passed with minimal Republican support. But another method for tallying up Obama’s scorecard was to gauge the impact of his actions on the economy—by looking at everything from unemployment figures to housing foreclosures; from bank earnings statements to the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
One other element that may have affected his coverage is the trend of the news industry—exemplified on the cable news talk shows—toward an ever more immediate horse race-oriented evaluation of the news. The question “how did the President do last week?” on the weekend network panel shows has now morphed into “how did the President do last hour?” on the nightly cable programs.
The growing power of this “snap judgment” culture in the media—often mixed in with ideological commentary—may also have contributed to the greater strategic focus on Obama.
On the February 13 NewsHour, Judy Woodruff prefaced the Obama report card segment by noting that the new president has been in office for three-and-a-half weeks.
“It’s not too soon to ask” how he’s doing, she ventured.
In the current media environment, it’s not considered to soon to ask after three-and-a-half minutes.
Really? Not romantic attraction? Liberal bias!
And when looking at the broader focus of overall media coverage, Pew found 37% positive, 23% negative, and 40% neutral.
Yeah, we're definitely heading over a cliff as a nation.
And when looking at the broader focus of overall media coverage, Pew found 37% positive, 23% negative, and 40% neutral.
Yeah, we're definitely heading over a cliff as a nation.
The point of the study was to compare coverage of Obama to that of his immediate past predecessors, as against whom (to repeat) "Obama has enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage." I think it's a meaningful metric; Anonymous doesn't, given his or her sense that we're not headed over a cliff. I don't think we are either, so let's turn to another point.
As Pew indicates, "Past studies have shown a recurring pattern of press coverage tending to follow favorability ratings." Obama's ratings have been favorable, and why not? He handily won election. But now his approval index may have gone negative. If that poll is valid, and if it becomes a trend, then some near-term future media study can draw a comparison, not to Bush-Clinton coverage, but to Obama himself. In other words, there's now a baseline, and it can be tested against the political-favorability variable. So, let's test the thing when and as we can and try to keep an open mind about it.
I think it's a meaningful metric
Only if kept in context, which is the part of the study I quoted, and the part of my comment you ignored.
So, let's test the thing when and as we can and try to keep an open mind about it.
Odd post to make a plea for reason and keeping an open mind. I can't imagine that's what Rick set out to do here.
That said, I'm happy to keep an open mind about Obama's overall media coverage. But only if it's kept in context and w/o baseless over-exaggerations about the media's 'romantic' feelings toward Obama or the 'danger' that could come to our society if a 40-37-23 neutral-positive-negative mix of stories continues.
Only if kept in context, which is the part of the study I quoted, and the part of my comment you ignored.
Well, the "context" I chose was the one chosen by the Pew study, as evidenced by its title, "HOW THE PRESIDENT FARED IN THE PRESS VS. CLINTON AND BUSH." The context you chose is, well, I'm not quite sure. Something to the effect that once you get beyond seven national media outlets, coverage remains significantly more favorable than not, though somewhat less so compared to the seven outlets (those seven being, I'd say, the most influential). Fine by me if that's where you think the main story lies.
Odd post to make a plea for reason and keeping an open mind. I can't imagine that's what Rick set out to do here.
I can't imagine you're qualified to speak to Rick's intent. Then, too, it's odd to respond to "a plea for reason and keeping an open mind" with an ad hominem attack. My fault, I suppose, for assuming too much.
The context you chose is, well, I'm not quite sure.
Really? The first line that I quoted from the study read, "Why the different Obama focus?"
You pointed out the what, I pointed out the why.
I can't imagine you're qualified to speak to Rick's intent.
If Rick wants to clear the air, he's certainly free.
Post a Comment