With all that said -- and I agree with you -- you have to admit that Rather's right about "dumbed-down, tarted-up" news coverage.

but how old a phenomenon is that?

I think he links it to cable news and, of course, Rupert Murdoch.

Before cable news, Rather himself tried to gain ratings by doing more "news you can use" features, mostly crap about the "silent killers" lurking in your medicine cabinet and overblown fakey scare-science like that.

Personally, I think inappropriate emotional outbursts have done more to 'tart up' the news than any of the other nonsense Rather is talking about.

Reporters want to be thought of as professionals, like doctors or lawyers. The only problem is, they don't really want to act professional. You don't see a doctor crying like a f'in baby when dealing with tragedy. Sure, they may cry later, but not when there's work to do.

There's nothing more unprofessional than letting your emotions get in the way of your ability to do your job. Reporters from all networks engaged in some terribly self-indulgent emotions during the hurricane coverage, and the coverage suffered as a result.

How much of what was reported was simply wrong? How often did they simply repeat rumors as fact?

Dan Rather came to prominence by reporting on hurricanes. Sitting out there getting rained on. The newsman as Hero.

That's kinda tarted-up when you think about it.

Trying to help a fine blog (and not be a complete smart-ass), please note that the word is imprimatur.

I'm sorry -- I was born with obsessive-compulsive-proof-reader syndrome.

Keep up the fine work.

deona

It's interesting to see what happened to television news in the 1970's. Until then, you had your basic (male) anchors reading the news off the TelePrompTer. No blonde cupcakes with good gams, no ditzy weathergirls, not many filmclips. Just some boring white guy reading the news.

But then you get into the 1970's, and things just blew apart. Lots more film clips, more "context" and "framing" (i.e., editorializing both covert and overt), more cute chicks with good legs, more stories about dogs and water-skiing squirrels. Some female newscaster in Texas actually committed suicide on the air. (The movie Network is actually pretty prescient when seen in this light.)

The reason for this swan-dive into the potty was partly due to the emergence of the New Left in the media as they rose to positions of power in the networks and major newspapers. But it was also due to the changing tastes of the public, who seemed to want entertainment more than news. But I think now the wheel is turning again and people now want real, actual news instead of the tarted-up crap being shoveled at us by the newspapers and networks.

Ace..have you forgotten Gunga Dan's heroic reports from the battlefields of Afghanistan where he went unshaven, carried an AK-47 and dressed like a member of the Mujahadeen?

That's more than "tarted up". That's full scale cross dressing.

"Power?" What is more powerful than being able to say almost anything to a mass audience without being challenged in the same venue... This has been the MSM until the last few years.

"Truth to Power" is what bloggers do to the MSM. It's not politicians that have intimidated journalists, it's fact-checking bloggers!

Plus, how f'in self-centered do you have to be to think that standing in the midst of a natural disaster is the perfect place to tell people how you feel about it?

It makes me ticked when these news anchors start saying things like "the nation is shocked" by what happened in New Orleans. I'm reminded of what one of my journalism professors said when someone wrote "The town was shocked by the vandalism."

He scratched out that sentence in red pen and wrote: "How the hell do you know the town was shocked? Did you interview the whole damn town?"

That was a great class.

"Speak truth to power".
"Power to the people".
"Tune in, turn on, drop out".
"Keep on truckin'"

OK, I like that last one. Is it time for the hippies to start dying en masse yet?

I recall seeing a study years ago, before the advent of Fox and the internet, showing that the average clip of a politician's comments on television news was upwards of 30 seconds back around 1960. By 1980, the typical clip was less than 8 seconds long. Except, of course, on the wildly popular McNeil-Lehrer News Hour.

Vacuous, over-emotional "news" has nothing to do with cable or those nasty bloggers. It's what keeps bored, passive viewers from punching the remote, and it's a lot more intrinsic to the nature of the television medium than the more participative, linky stuff you find on the blogs.

Like the powerful don't know what the truth is, right? Speaking truth to power my ass.

How is it speaking "truth" when you report that the delay in getting to people is Bush's fault and it is later revealed that it was in fact local govt. that wouldn't allow Red Cross in??? And then you don't report that?

Is that truth? I don't think so. It's more like "Lie to try and get my own power"

To expand on Monty's comments about the changing tastes of the public, and Slublog's remarks about journalists aspirations to "professionalism," if journalists were really professionals, they wouldn't be sensitive to the changing tastes of the public. One aspect of the vaunted professionalism of doctors and lawyers (and accounting auditors, and actuaries, etc.) is that they are expected to not be willing to do anything for money. They are bound by ethical guidelines that rise above the mere legal requirements that restrain the rest of us. If journalists want to be professionals, they need to be able to take a stand on principal, and refuse to orient their reporting around the things that are going to get the most ratings. That means no more freaking out about Natalle Holloway or Elizabeth Smart.

Unfortunately for journalists, this also requires a more robust intellect than most of them possess. You see, some of the sensationalism could be the innocent result of honest ignorance - they hear something that scares the crap out of them (because they are morons) and think it's urgent that everyone else know it too - they think they are doing their duty with some of this stuff. If their fear were justified, then so would be their reporting.

Sorry, but I'm not going to hold my breath for the Big Media to start employing experts in subjects who also happen to be able to write instead of experts in writing who happen to be willing to wax eloquent on topics that they haven't the mental horsepower to comprehend.

Sorry for the long comment.

more cute chicks with good legs

What was your point again, Monty? I got temporarily distracted. :)

I would say the even the most sincere attemps to be "disinterested" fail. We pass on our viewpoint, no matter how we may try to be neutral. It happens even in the selection of what stories we cover. Nuthing wrong with having a point of view, it is the spice of life. What hoses my mubarak, is when people claim to be unbiased, and/or claim the opposing side is biased, part of a conspiracy, blah, blah, blah....

If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from hell before breakfast.

Also, those vacuous, bloodsucking little whiners would blame hell on GWB policies and hint that Satan is treated unfairly because he has red skin. Then, after bypassing all those suicide bombers looking for their promised virgins, they'll find the nearest rich white man and say, "told ya so," while conveniently forgetting they are also rich, white and man(-ish).
But what the heck is a T-V?

Oh, and War is Hell.

Today's journalists are a bunch of pansies.

Elitist, overpaid jackasses.

I would say the even the most sincere attemps to be "disinterested" fail. We pass on our viewpoint, no matter how we may try to be neutral. It happens even in the selection of what stories we cover. Nuthing wrong with having a point of view, it is the spice of life.

But shouldn't an aspiration toward professionalism mean an ability to set aside those emotions? I'm not saying reporters shouldn't get emotional about what they cover. I'm saying they should keep that emotion from interfering with their jobs.

There has been a lot of talk lately about how 'passionate' jounalists were in reporting about Katrina. I don't want passion in journalists unless that passion is oriented toward one thing - getting the actual facts of a story.

Dan Rather has spent his life pathetically telegraphing what he'd like to see in his obituary, him with his rolled up sleeves and his suspenders and his self-conscious folksy wierdness. I wish I could remember who described him as "looking like he was forever auditioning for the lead in a dinner theater performance of Front Page." Just so.

Last of the hardbitten newshounds, out there in the trenches. Hard working. Down to earth. A little eccentric, maybe, but a heart of gold. Pff!

What a little slice of heaven to know he's going to live long enough to see media as he knew it come untrue. That he's seeing it now. That he hastened its demise. And he gets to know it.

No wonder he's blubbering through his speeches.

"Former CBS News anchor Dan Rather said Monday that there is a climate of fear running through newsrooms stronger than he has ever seen in his more than four-decade career."

And you know what's behind this climate of fear? Yup, you guessed it-- Mansquito attacks.

Cheers,
Dave at Garfield Ridge

With all that said -- and I agree with you -- you have to admit that Rather's right about "dumbed-down, tarted-up" news coverage.

Damn it, the tarts are the only good part

"Speaking truth to power" ranks just below "War is not the answer" and "Arms are for hugging" in level of silliness among chicklet-brained lefty slogans. That's what I hear from most of the libs I know; they argue in cliches rather than actual ideas. When every response to every stated argument comes from a protest sign, you deserve to be laughed out of the room rather than tolerated.

I completely agree with Duhgee. I would much prefer my news to be overt about its bias than make the currently de rigeur attempt at objectivity. Fox is well ahead of the curve on this front. I love the Christian Science Monitor because everyone of their pieces is signed by staff writers and the pieces go beyond a bland attempt just report the facts to actually stating what the facts mean.

Any recitation of facts has inherent selection bias, don't fight it just be clear about it.

Another thing I agree with is JFH's statement, ""Truth to Power" is what bloggers do to the MSM. " This does not negate the MSM's ability to reveal uncomfortable truths that those in power would hide and in the long run it should make the MSM better able to do so because they have gotten damn lazy as the news cycle accelerates and bloggers will hopefully act as a brake on this tendency.

vonKreedon:

I've never understood just what it is about Fox News that drives lefties so batty. Sure, they're biased -- but then so is every other network news show. In fact, Fox News is less coy about their bias than any other television news channel -- CNN has turned into a far-left sump of angry-weepy babblers, but they still pretend to be giving "the straight news". Lefties don't hate Fox because they're biased; they hate Fox News because it's biased the wrong way.

To report the "news" is to be biased: if not in tone or editorial content, then simply in the choice of what to report. Have you seen any big front-page stories about the recent Afghan elections? I haven't -- I had to go to the blogs to find out that the elections went pretty much okay. There was no major violence, ergo the MSM didn't see a story there -- as if a successful popular election after decades of strife and warfare isn't a story worthy of consideration.

I don't watch television news any more; I barely watch television any more. I haven't read a major newspaper or newsmagazine in months; if I need the news, I either peruse the local fishwrap or check the blogs. I'm finding more and more that I can do very nicely with no "MSM" at all.

Monty - Speaking as a leftist who despises Fox news, what I despise is that they still claim to be "Fair and Balanced" and "We report, you decide", O'Reilly claims to be a moderate who operates a "No Spin Zone". They are ahead of the curve, but they still try to pretend that they are really reporting the real facts while actually doing very very little reportage; pretty much the entire schedule is analysis interupted by new snippets.

Plus, being a mean, snide, asshole seems to be a pre-req for the guys, and the women seem to be required to be bland blonde bubble heads.

Plus, being a mean, snide, asshole seems to be a pre-req for the guys, and the women seem to be required to be bland blonde bubble heads.

The difference between "mean, snide asshole" and "hard-hitting, incisive political commentator" depends largely on whether you agree with the particular asshole under discussion. I would, for example, class every personality I've heard on Air America as a mean, snide asshole.

That said, I don't particularly like anyone in Fox's lineup.

Weasel - I've never listened to Air America partly because my understanding is that they are attempting to be a Fox from the Left, and I find leftists trying to out-Fox Fox a very depressing thought. That is to say, yeah if I listened I'm afraid I would agree that they also are required to be mean, snide, assholes.

I listen to NPR and Lehrer for news other than papers and the Internet.

Mr. Rather: "Truth to power? You, speak truth to power? You don't know what truth is. You can't handle the truth!"

To have heard some one say that to him, then, would have made my year. Well, at least a portion of it.

vonKreedon:

mean, snide, asshole

The same can be said for Wolf Blitzer, Chris Matthews, or Ted Turner himself for that matter. And CNN pretty much bought into the "bubblehead" thing with Paula Zahn. And Larry King is just as irritating as O'Reilly in my book. (Although I carry no flame for Bill "Elmer Gantry" O'Reilly -- I hate that faux-populist shtick of his.) And let us not forget the Queen Jerk herself, Katie Couric. Or Matt Lauer, her retarded lackey-boy. Both are so slavishly devoted to the Democrats they all but fawn when Bill Clinton or Hillary! deigns to give them an interview, but are snippy and contemptuous when they interview a Bush or a Rove. Couric all but gave Slick Willie a wettie the last time she interviewed him. (Myrna Blyth wrote a really revealing book on this very topic called Spin Sisters, and I recommend it highly.)

Hating Fox News seems to be a prerequisite for a lefty, but it's not hatred for the bias itself; it's a hatred that the bias is the wrong way.

"Monty - Speaking as a leftist who despises Fox news, what I despise is that they still claim to be "Fair and Balanced" and "We report, you decide", O'Reilly claims to be a moderate who operates a "No Spin Zone". They are ahead of the curve, but they still try to pretend that they are really reporting the real facts while actually doing very very little reportage; pretty much the entire schedule is analysis interupted by new snippets."

They do present both sides, and they allow both sides to present their views....

It just comes down to the fact that you don't like seeing a 'news channel' that doesn't automatically see things through the 'lefty prism'..... and we are SO TIRED OF THE OPPOSITE.....

Just reading over my last commnet, it appears that I intimated that Spin Sisters is about Couric giving Bill Clinton a wettie. While Blyth does go into Couric's puppylike devotion to the ex-President, I can't recall Blyth mentioning an actual wettie.

The same goes for Barbara Walters' inteview with noted tyrant and despot Fidel Castro. While she burbled and gushed with admiration on camera, any purported wetties that occured took place off camera.

Just wanted to get that straight.

I can't believe Rather gets speaking gigs after he was fired for running a faked-up story, lying about it, and throwing coworkers under the bus.

But then again, Edward Kennedy is a Senator and he's done worse.

I would say the even the most sincere attemps to be "disinterested" fail. We pass on our viewpoint, no matter how we may try to be neutral. It happens even in the selection of what stories we cover. Nuthing wrong with having a point of view, it is the spice of life.

But shouldn't an aspiration toward professionalism mean an ability to set aside those emotions? I'm not saying reporters shouldn't get emotional about what they cover. I'm saying they should keep that emotion from interfering with their jobs.

There has been a lot of talk lately about how 'passionate' jounalists were in reporting about Katrina. I don't want passion in journalists unless that passion is oriented toward one thing - getting the actual facts of a story.
If a journalist is 'passionate', he should be up front that he/she is an advocate, as ace says. But it is not realistic to think 'straight' journalism is completely unslanted.

{sorry, preview is my friend}

If a journalist is 'passionate', he should be up front that he/she is an advocate, as ace says. But it is not realistic to think 'straight' journalism is completely unslanted.

If a journalist is 'passionate', he should be up front that he/she is an advocate, as ace says

They'll *NEVER* *EVER* admit they're pitching an angle.

The sheep would burn them alive.

Passing off napkin scrawlings procured at a livestock show from Lucy Ramirez = Speaking Truth To Power

Getting busted by some pajama-clad Freeper inside of 60 minutes (oh, the delicious, scrumptious irony) = Priceless

Leaving his colleagues to choke on their dismissal notices = Classless

Dan the Sad Clown doesn't have the shame or humility to climb back in his Shrinermobile and putter off into the sunset. I might not either if a claque of toadying, ass-licking "journalists" showered praise and awards on me specifically because I sacrificed my integrity and my career on the altar of BushHatred. But then I also sneak around behind little kids at the carnival and pick up any money they drop, so what do you expect?

Sir,

Like every other sensible person, I too detest when these poltroons use the "truth to power" crap. But, as with everything else, Dan managed to leave me scratching my head. "Truth to power" regarding a hurricane. It's a natural disaster, force of nature, force majeure. Yes, we name hurricanes, but they are not sentient beings. How exactly does one "speak truth (to this particular) power"? Would the hurricane understand? Some of your more astute readers will say that Dan meant scalding the government for their response. I'm not so sure. This is Dan "what's the frequency, Kenneth"/"Courage"/"A frog would keep the gun in his pocket if he had one( or whatever he said )"/ "Gunga" Rather, who first assaulted the nation's consciousness by standing in a tropical downpour, acting like he was personnally defying Boreas. Dan's had a rough year. That explains all the tears. Could it be that Dan has finally come completely unhinged? Is Dan just another victim of Bush Derangement Syndrome? How many more lives are we going to let Darth Rove destroy? There is something afoot here, and it's more than just a middle aged whacko crying himself into full blown senility.

How 'bout Speaking Truth to Viewers for a change, Dan?

Sometimes the MSM does indeed 'speak truth to power'--but sometimes it's the White House that speaks truth to the media's power. They are every bit as partisan, secretive and agenda-driven as they accuse Bush of being.

They've made press briefings and press conferences all but unwatchable except perhaps as a drinking game--it's merely a giant 'Gotcha!' session with the so-called 'reporters' as the stars.

Keep it up, guys. Because you've refused to tell it straight, you've already helped create talk radio, the blogosphere and Fox News. It's all good.

All Dan's hand wringing is about losing the power that the liberals had for so many years. Liberals no longer control the news. Thats what they cant stand. They are on the outside looking in and it couldnt be any funnier. You cant buy this much entertainment at the movie theater. And its free. Sit back and enjoy the show.

deona: Trying to help a fine blog (and not be a complete smart-ass), please note that the word is imprimatur.

I'm sorry -- I was born with obsessive-compulsive-proof-reader syndrome.

Along those same lines, the show was called "MacGyver." No U, for Christ's sake.

That second paragraph was deona's, too.

For some reason it didn't want to stay italicized.

Aw, geez. 60 Minutes was tarted up and dumbed down twenty years ago.

Your site is a very nice source of info. Superb Mistery Bet or not: http://www.sciencedaily.com/ , Game will Plane unconditionally when Plane Kill Table Compute , Faithful Mistery Hope or not Make Love Destroy - that is all that Opponents is capable of