Is It Really The End of the World or Just A Snowstorm?

Apologies, first of all, to those of you who are truly in a blizzard. Washington, Virginia, New Jersey, Long Island, I get it. This is some serious snow.

This is directed at the media.

Wolf Blitzer was so excited by the snow that he donned his hat and scarf and walked outside the CNN Washington studios to show us deserted streets. That's probably the best thing I've seen Wolf do in a long time. But the New York stations were downright ridiculous.

NBC dragged Chuck Scarborough into the studio and cancelled all their programming to yammer on and on about the fact that it was snowing.

"Better leave early for work," they warned at a time when you can be certain anyone who WAS going to go to work was already on the way.

"Leave your car behind." Ditto.

All day long they had video of kids sledding, people trudging through the snow, cars crawling along the road.

Isn't this New York? Doesn't it snow here in the winter? Do we really have to act as though this is a major disaster?

It seems to me that a storm that is likely to result in one snow day for the local schools just isn't much of a storm.

I see this as a symptom of the 24 hour news cycle. As soon as anything happens, anything at all, the newsrooms go into hysterical overdrive, covering and covering and covering it until it's absolutely smothered.

Excuse me, weren't we all just in a lather on Monday (sorry - you were, not me) about the governor's supposed scandalous behavior which the NY Times was going to publish? Wasn't he going to resign?

Not only did the governor not resign, he soundly thrashed the Times for spreading rumors without actually providing any facts, or even a story. There's still no story in the Times.

And by golly there was another rumor about the governor today, this time involving ethics. The news organizations pounced on it like starving wolverines.

They've got time to fill. They need stories. And we've apparently reached the point where we report rumors if we don't have fact.



I have no opinion on the governor but I'm disgusted by the press, my colleagues.
We're becoming Chicken Little, screaming the sky is falling every time a flake falls from the sky, every time someone whispers there might be a story that could bring down a public figure.

I've sometimes felt like being a reporter is not far different from being a professional gossip. It feels even worse now.

Bill Moyers Is My Hero

Moyers is out there digging up the dirt to see what's underneath, accompanied on television, mostly, by Jon Stewart. If you haven't seen Stewart's feature on Timothy Geithner's real estate issues, it's worth a watch. But this post is about corruption at the top. And the press, with just a few exceptions, is ignoring it.

What a pitiful state of affairs. Go sit in the corner, Anderson. Sit on the dunce seat, Wolf. Fox, never mind. Rachel, you go, girl. But don't just focus on marketing firms - start making noise at the top.

America, World, watch and weep. This is what we are right now. It's all about money.

So Just What Is the Media's Role?

I watched the Stewart vs. Cramer Daily Show last night. I'm sure it was a mighty audience. Many of them were disappointed. It wasn't all that funny. It was, instead, another battle in Jon Stewart's crusade to get the media to do its job.

It's the underlying message of his show every single day, yet many viewers probably lose that message because basically, it's just funny.

Stewart's serious. He always has been. When he took on Tucker Carlson and CNN's "Crossfire" he was practically pleading. He wants news. He wants the media to do what we used to believe it does - objectively report the news, investigate what it's told and let us know what is true and what isn't.

Instead, what we have is an alphabet of talking heads all spouting their own view of things and we tune into whoever says what we like to hear. I know it. I know that when I watch Rachel Maddow she's preaching to the choir. I watch Lou Dobbs and want to throw socks at the television. I watch Fox News and wonder if perhaps I have a high blood pressure problem.

So, Stewart asks, where are the watchdogs?

CNBC is the NBC financial network. It has the supposed experts who offer advice to investors. And that's the bottom line, according to Stewart. Who are they talking to?

Is CNBC there to benefit the investor insiders, winking and touching fingers beside their noses as they share information based on lies that influence how the poor schmucks at home invest their money? Is CNBC there to offer the best advice it can to all investors? Is CNBC a watchdog inside the guarded gates? CNBC doesn't really know, according to Jim Cramer.

Cramer admitted the network could have done a better job investigating what it was told, could have been more careful about the advice it offered. Cramer sounded almost contrite when confronted with an interview in which he reveals the depth of his understanding of how to manipulate the market.

The whole confrontation was certainly great press for Cramer. How many people will now watching his show to see if he makes good on his promise to become a better watchdog for the public? But can you trust a thing CNBC does? Why should you?

And that, I'm betting, makes Jon Stewart a very sad funny man.





http://news.bostonherald.com/track/celebrity/view/2009_03_13_Jon_Stewart_hammers_Jim_Cramer_on__The_Daily_Show_/srvc=home&position=7

What I Learned From the Election

Now that the dust has nearly settled (we still don't know about that filibuster-proof Senate yet, do we?) I've realized I've gotten a lot of lessons from the election of 2008. And I'm a big believer in taking note of lessons learned, since if you ignore them they tend to come up over and over.

1. People are easily scared: Hillary's three ayem phone ad was, according to polls, actually effective. Obama was seen as the less-steady hand, the shaking newby who would crack under pressure. Seems pretty silly now, doesn't it? The man's proving to be a rock - and a confident one.

2. Scared people get angry: Once the fear of Obama was spread around thickly enough, people reacted with anger. Who can forget the Republican crowds screaming "terrorist!" "Kill him!" And that anger turned against John McCain when he tried to reassure them they had nothing to fear from an Obama presidency. And these were his supporters!

3. Scared people will latch onto things that make them feel safer. Conservatives clutched Just Sarah From Wausilla to their hearts. She was young, she was pretty and she was absolutely certain everything was going to be okay. Progressives held Obama equally tight. Ditto. Luckily for Just Sarah, she's not going to be held accountable for this poop soup that used to be our economy. Our president-elect, you must admit, is a brave soul. I wouldn't want to take this job on.

4. Even scared people can be won over. I have some very conservative relatives. One of them will also freely admit to being a racist. So imagine my surprise when, in a recent conversation, he told me he "didn't think too badly of Obama" anymore. "He's certainly smart," he told me, "and he seems to be sincerely trying to fix things. I wish him well and hope he can do it." Score one for the Obama Team.

5. The people in charge don't necessarily know more than I do. It's a holdover from childhood - this assumption that if you're in charge, you must know more than me. You'd think that eight years of George W. Bush would have beaten that out of me. But it took Hank Paulson to do it once and for all. The poor man is clearly in way over his head - he's trying to come up with a rescue plan without a firm handle on what might work and a mandate to take care of old pals....but don't forget to not totally alienate public opinion! Remember that old Star Trek episode where Kirk used logic to short out the bad robot? "You say you are lying, but you tell the truth..." Paulson's conflicting imperatives are forcing a series of epic flip flops and I am expecting to soon see steam coming from his ears as his circuits overheat. I believe this problem is going to take a committee - a bunch of smart people bouncing it around until they come up with a plan...not a unilateral fix that is politically expedient. Score another for the Obama Transition - the team's gelling.

6. The media is ridiculous. Yes, I know. I'm one of them. But really. It's downright embarrassing. Because cable and satellite have created a 24 hour news cycle, the news shows most resemble a bunch of old people sitting around a table hashing and rehashing the same topic as they play canasta. "Is this change or just more of the same?" "Should Obama be keeping a lower profile?" "Is Obama taking charge too soon?" "Which dog will the Obama's get?"
It's the same stuff over and over and over and there's rarely anything new. When there is, everyone pounces on it like a pack of dogs in an alley. Pretty soon it's so mangled there's nothing left but a little bone.

7. Rachel Maddow and Jon Stewart rock. Jon Stewart is my favorite media watchdog. He's smart, he's willing to take on the people he likes as well as the ones he disagrees with, and he's essentially good hearted. This man brought on the tightly wound Bill O'Reilly and offered him not a tongue lashing, but a cup of cocoa and a teddy bear. It was a dig, but there was an element of sincerity. Stewart's essential warmth (remember him after 9-11) and obvious idealism make him the critic with a heart. And man, does the media need to be watched. Opinion masquerades as news everywhere now.
Maddow has a similar warmth. She may be progressive, she may be snarky, but she's human. When she says she's been waiting years for infrastructure to get sexy, you know she means it - and she's thrilled that it's happening. She's not standing on the sidelines jeering, she's emotionally in the middle of things and talking about things that she believes matter. I can't watch the news much now - it makes me twitch. But Stewart and Maddow still tell me what they're thinking most nights.

8. I Don't Know Much. I never thought I knew much...lots of people had more information and lots more opinions. I've come to realize I know very little - and any opinions I hold are subject to change as more information becomes available. I think the good thing is once you know you don't know much, you're willing to listen and learn. I'm listening.

This is Democracy in Action?

Here's the latest from the polls in one liberal enclave...it'll be interesting to see how this compares to the rest of the country:

http://www.publicbroadcasting.net/wamc/news.newsmain?action=article&ARTICLE_ID=1406553

Why do we even have to be concerned about voter fraud? Don't we live in a democracy? Doesn't one person, one vote form part of the foundation of our political system? What's going on here?

I'm hearing too many stories of people who aren't going to get to vote - and not because they're not eligible or didn't register. This New York Times article discusses the problem...it isn't about voting machine glitches, fraudulent registrations or lost absentee ballots...though all of that happens as well...it's about keeping people away from the polls.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/opinion/13tue1.html

Here's a story from CNN's IReport on a guy who went to vote and discovered his registration had been lost in the mail:

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-131829

And here's a book entirely devoted to the subject...

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/fund200409130633.asp

I'm not pointing fingers at one party - this garbage is going on all over the country. My cousin, who supports McCain, registered for an absentee ballot because he's disabled. The ballot never arrived. He checked with the election board in New Mexico and was told that because he'd been sent a ballot, even if he didn't get it, he couldn't go vote in person. Bottom line: he can't vote.
He's outraged.

There are stories out of West Virginia that show some machines automatically flipped votes for Obama to McCain. Their solution is to recalibrate the machines. There are other stories of machines that will cancel an Obama vote if you vote the straight ticket after casting your presidential vote. Not a rumor...confirmed on Snopes. You must vote each candidate individually to be sure your vote is counted correctly.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/straightticket.asp

It amazes me that the country seems to accept that our president stole the election in 2000, stacked the deck in his favor in 2004, has mandated new voting machines, many of which eliminate backup paper ballots, and we're placidly sitting around, wondering if maybe the person who gets the most votes this year won't win yet again.

CNN has a place where you can make noise if you think your vote isn't being counted or recorded properly.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/voter.hotline/

And Mother Jones (been keeping everyone honest for years, bless 'em) is watching and counting.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfront/2008/11/election-fraud-map.html


Obama's campaign isn't sitting on their hands. They've got a link and a phone number to report if you have trouble voting. And right now that's our only defense - making noise if we're not allowed to vote.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/vpcreport

But it may be that this country has reached the point where we have to call in UN supervisors to guarantee a fair election. Wouldn't that just be ironic.

Perception is Everything

We don't just watch presidential debates anymore. We watch, we watch other people watch, we watch a graph show us how independent voters react, we watch news people tell us how they did and how we think it went.

I watched the last debate. It was a tough choice, as our inattentiveness apparently torpedoed Joe Torre's chances to go to the World Series with his Dodgers. I feel bad about that.

But it felt important to know how John McCain and Barack Obama would handle this last face to face meeting. And I know what I thought, but I was amazed how much more information I got thanks to the voracious appetite of the 24 hour news cycle.

CNN's roundtable of experts, many of whom I enjoy thoroughly, were unanimous - this was McCain's best debate yet. Obama, they said, was 'flat' and 'professorial.'

But as the polls of viewers came in, the tone changed. Yes, McCain had some good moments and started off strong, but polls (in their infinitely important way) clearly showed that voters walked away perceiving Obama as the stronger candidate. His numbers improved, while McCain's fell yet again. And then the talk began about why that might be.

"Those reaction shots killed him," I heard.

That's my opinion, too. McCain has the unfortunate habit of looking angry even when he's trying to smile. His 'fighter' persona comes across as hostile. He widened his eyes in mock shock on a few occasions, and it triggered memories of every angry, closed-minded discussion I ever had with my father. I loved my dad, but I didn't enjoy those discussions and I instinctively cringe from that body language.

Obama's 'professorial' demeanor was fine with me. He appears steady and deliberate and very, very difficult to rattle. His temper flared briefly just for a moment or two, but I've said before that I like that - I want to know he CAN get angry, I just want him to have it under control. He did.

And what about those stupid graphs we watched as the debate went on? Women clearly were happier with what they were hearing from the Democrat. And men? What were they doing? Those lines were all over the place on several occasions...like they were grabbing for a snack and hit the button by accident, or maybe playing with the knob to watch the lines move. It seemed to have no relation to what was being said. What those lines did was distract me from what the candidates were saying. I don't need another source to tell me what people are thinking. This isn't politics by committee - when we go in that voting booth we'll each be totally alone.

Today we'll see what the pundits say. Their initial enthusiasm for McCain will be tempered by the fact that voters apparently didn't agree with them. I think McCain did a fine job, as good as he's capable of doing. He made some points that I agreed with, or at least understood his point of view. But his barely repressed anger, his dogged refusal to give up a point when it's been answered time and time again and his insistence that he knows what to do...when I'm convinced this situation is so complex that right now NO ONE knows exactly what will work, made the difference between the candidates clear.

Talk About Your Unfortunate Typos

"Osama" for president? That's what voters in a county neighboring New York's capital city saw on their ballots when they got them this week. Rensselaer County elections officials say it was just an error...certainly not an attempt to sway those voters.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/usvotes/story/2008/10/10/osama-obama.html

I'd love to take them at their word, but 'b' and 's' aren't exactly neighbors on the keyboard, and it's just such a conveniently devastating change to replace the Democratic nominee with America's most hated terrorist.

It's bad timing, coming on the heels of a Republican campaign that nearing slipped over the edge into hate-mongering. Lou Dobbs, he of the blindingly white teeth and the conviction that illegal immigrants are to blame for every problem in this country, tore into the Obama campaign for not more forcefully rebuking Congressman John Lewis who compared the McCain tactics of the past week to the hate spread by racist legend George Wallace.

Obama downplayed the incident, but anyone watching the screaming rallies led by ultra right cheerleader Sarah Palin could see the danger. Crowds yelled "string him up" and "terrorist!" and Palin nodded and continued. It was left to John McCain to grab the mike from one fear-crazed woman and tell her that no, Senator Obama isn't an Arab, isn't a terrorist, is a decent Christian man who loves his country.

It clearly scared McCain's camp when his supporters booed him in response. And if "Mr. Independent" couldn't recognize the danger, at least McCain did.

Now he's back to the "We can do it!" school of campaigning, a place where he's more effective and more comfortable, and a lot less inflammatory.

Disaster as Spectator Sport

I'm amazed by the media coverage of Hurricane Ike.

I sat, eyes glued to the television, and watched reporters being pummeled by high winds and roaring surf as satellite connections blinked out and they told us about the danger to people who hadn't evacuated Galveston yet.

One thought kept going through my mind, and after an hour or so I was actually yelling at the reporters.

"GET OUT!"

Geraldo Rivera, bless him, had the most dramatic moments that I'm aware of. Of course he did. Geraldo has made a career of dramatic moments, starting back when he was a cub reporter in NYC breaking into Willowbrook to show the world how the poor patients there were being neglected.

Today the Internet is full of video of Geraldo getting knocked on his keister by Hurricane Ike. I tuned in later in the evening, but he was still getting blown sideways and soaked as the anchors back in the warm, cozy studio asked him for the latest conditions.

"The nearby hotel," I heard him say, "has already taken a hit from Ike. Bricks have blown off the building."

Bricks blowing off buildings should be a pretty clear indication that it's time to get indoors and find shelter. But no, the American public needs to know what's going on. We need to see the hurricane as it happens. It's gripping video. And that gets ratings.

This is what the media has come to. A natural disaster can be covered as it happens, reporters who want to make a name for themselves can risk their lives to be in the thick of it, and we can all sit at home and tut-tut over the tragedy. And some can laugh as they watch Geraldo blow over again and again.

I saw the movie "Twister." What I watched felt a lot like that, only it was real. So the line between news and entertainment has grown that much blurrier.

Have we become a nation, perhaps even a world, of voyeurs? Do we need to be able to see everything as it happens because it gives us a visceral punch, makes us feel like we've experienced something?

The news has become our pimp...they give us our fix, keep us revved up with scandal, controversy, adrenaline-pumping danger. And we sit back and watch and demand more.

The news will perform a service after the disaster. It will make us aware of people in need, make the aftermath immediate enough that many of us will be moved to help. But what I saw last night was just another disaster movie. I think I'd have been far more impressed if Geraldo had gotten in out of the weather and encouraged everyone else there to do the same.