“Experts Say” Why can’t journos just completely dispense with analysis in their words. Their analysis can be implied by what’s written but they don’t have to put in any commentary. Just lay out the facts and put them into context.
"Experts say it looks bad?" I'm not an expert, but this reminds me of the scene where Tony Soprano and Carmella go to marriage counseling and after a few exchanges of yelling back and forth, the therapist says, "I may be raawng about this, but I get the sense that both of you might have some anger issues..." And Tony says, "Yeah? How'd you figure that out? You musta finished in the toppa yaw fuckin class!"
Not quite sure where to put this. I'm sure many of you have seen the article by Uri Berliner, a former NPR editor, who said that NPR is left leaning. I'm sure many of us heard/read that and scoffed, particularly considering how much we criticize them around here. But it is interesting that other news organizations have backed NPR. I read this from the WaPo this morning. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/04/18/npr-russia-coverage-berliner/ In an April 9 essay in the Free Press, Berliner, who worked at NPR for 25 years, rapped his employer for allegedly running a newsroom fueled by progressive sensibilities that seep into a skewed on-air product. Stories on Trump-Russia, Hunter Biden and covid-19 have all suffered from acute NPRitis, he writes. And racial and identity considerations — as well as affinity groups — shape workplace culture. The Free Press, one of @The Jitty Slitter's favorite publications. On Berliner's way out My resignation letter to NPR CEO @krmaher pic.twitter.com/0hafVbcZAK— Uri Berliner (@uberliner) April 17, 2024 Reads like he can't handle a new CEO being a woman (or maybe just not him). Which is to say, Berliner is now an expert in disparagement and umbrage. In his Free Press essay, he deplores his colleagues’ “advocacy” and alleges that it had “veered toward efforts to damage or topple [Donald] Trump’s presidency.” Now that is disparagement. Even in the rough-and-tumble world of journalism, slamming your colleagues for their published work — especially in another outlet — is a rare undertaking. As Berliner suggests in his essay, it was something of a last resort, considering that he had raised his concerns internally to little effect. He invited people to sample NPR’s coverage and “make their own judgment.” Invitation accepted. Over the past several days, I have sifted through roughly three years’ worth of NPR’s coverage of Russiagate, the effort by federal investigators and the media to discover the truth about the Trump campaign’s connections to Russia. Since NPR’s alleged tilt on this story serves as Exhibit No. 1 in Berliner’s onslaught — and since it’s central to the claim that the network sought to topple Trump — I chose to limit my efforts to this portion of the essay. ... Is this the prejudicial poison of which Berliner writes? We asked him to supply instances of in which Schiff’s talking points suffused NPR’s independent reporting. After several emails and a phone call, Berliner hasn’t responded with supporting material. Had NPR wished to addle its lefty audience with suggestive reporting about Trump’s alleged criminality regarding Russia, it had a tool at its disposal. The so-called Steele dossier, published in early January 2017 by BuzzFeed News, contained explosive allegations presented by a former British intelligence officer. Various news outlets and commentators bathed the dossier in credibility that it didn’t deserve, as noted in an extensive thread by Drew Holden and a series in this space. Top offenders include McClatchy, which ran stories bolstering the dossier’s claims that former Trump lawyer Michael Cohen had traveled to Prague for collusive business; and dossier believer in chief Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, who cheered for the document throughout Russiagate. NPR’s dossier work was by no means perfect. “Fresh Air” host Terry Gross, for example, occasionally failed to properly smack down dossier boosters during interviews. Yet the outlet was careful to avoid McClatchy’s “scoops” on Cohen and otherwise to cordon off its descriptions of the dossier with police tape. “NPR has never detailed the document because so much of it remains unproved,” reads a 2019 NPR story. The NPR spokesperson said in a statement: “We were not able to find any examples of NPR corroborating unconfirmed elements of the Trump dossier." And in conclusion? NPR, as it turns out, is an analogue to nothing — a sui generis outlet driven by old-fashioned journo-principles, an aversion to offending anyone and a steady propensity to annoy listeners. Surely, it has many things to apologize for, though an on-air campaign to oust a president isn’t among them. Ha!
I donate to my local NPR affiliate and kicked in for the national org yesterday with a note of support and good riddance to opportunistic douche Uri Berliner.
This is truly extraordinary from the NYT editor.... This is stunning. A NY Times journalist says the publication’s chairman AG Sulzberger encourages that the organization cover the President negatively and highlight his age out of retribution for the fact that Biden hasn’t granted the Times an interview.
That's as petty as the tabloid editor character in The Gentlemen who wants a hit piece on McConaughey's character because he refuses to shake his hand.
Here’s something I didn’t think I’d ever write. That Politico piece was really good. I learned a lot.
Slow news day I guess....Those guys are truly failing at their job! “President Biden has introduced a change to his White House departure and return routine. Instead of walking across the South Lawn to and from Marine One by himself, he’s now often surrounded by aides,” Axios reports. “With aides usually walking between Biden and journalists’ camera position outside the White House, the visual effect is to draw less attention to the 81-year-old’s halting and stiff gait.”
Your liberal media at work! Fair and balanced! Both sides of the story! Paying the 4th Estate was possibly the worst thing that could have been done. They have to eat, but now they're just looking to increase revenue, like gunning for higher TV ratings. News organizations don't need ratings. But there's no way to take money out of the media.
What's with the obsession of shoe-horning an airplane story into every national newscast, no matter how insignificant? Yesterday, someone at ABC decided that a 747 having to abort a landing was worthy of being one of the top 8 or so news stories of the day. The day before, an airplane landing with a punctured tyre was top 8 material. I don't know the stats, but surely aborted landings are not so unusual.
You've cited two days. Do you have enough info to conclude that the newscasts are doing what you suggest?
Yes, I've compiled a work sheet listing the top 8 stories on the news over the past 365 days and an airplane story is on there 272 times. I think I've shown with these 2 examples how low the bar is even on days when there was quite a bit of real news to report. At the very least, it shows that journalists of major news networks simply search YouTube to find some of their main stories.
Sure, true. I recall a multi-day stretch recently where there were alot of tornadoes across the nation. Then there was a day with not much activity, but there was a brief EF-0 that stirred up someone's lawn furniture. Boom - top national news story! Thanks again, You Tube. So, this is kind of like that. But the Boeing stories aren't new. This need to report on an airplane story daily has been going on for months.
People at that level fly all the time and therefore issues like this get prioritized. Remember back when there was a federal shutdown or something similar, and it only got resolved when the airports were affected? Commercial flying is one of those issues where paranoids who talk about the duopoly are 100% spot on.
It’s the brilliant orange effect. Remember he was posting about all these people in stadiums having cardiovascular events, therefore concluding it was due to the rna vaccine? I bought a Honda Fit years back, and before I did so, I didn’t notice them. But now I see them everywhere. Clearly, I started the trend.
Biden doing an interview with Howard Stern while the NY Times throws a hissy fit about him not interviewing them is low key brutal. And funny. Per WH: The President is doing a live interview with Howard Stern on Sirius XM radio.— Seung Min Kim (@seungminkim) April 26, 2024
This is the equivalent of putting a bag of dog poop on the New York Times’ doorstep and setting it on fire. https://t.co/RhGbHH9pU2— Mark Jacob (@MarkJacob16) April 26, 2024
Going with the NYPD narrative: This is an exceedingly common bicycle lock. It’s a type Columbia public safety has promoted to its students. How did this claim get all the way onto tv? https://t.co/2vAmrrpUd7— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) May 1, 2024 And into a press conference with the mayor? How dumb are these guys? https://t.co/9b1wOi0ECX— southpaw (@nycsouthpaw) May 1, 2024 For the reply doubters: https://t.co/jJ5IrtF6uz— Tango (@TangoAlphaLima) May 1, 2024
They are worse than Charlie Brown: So-called pundits and "legal analysts" being this absolutely naive and falling for the cheapest waterworks will always surprise me. I never get used to it. Chris Hayes has been surprised by every single thing that's happened while he was alive. And I don't think it's an act.— David Avallone (@DAvallone) May 3, 2024