News media

July 29, 2005 7:08 PM

Bad news.Richard Posner on the News Media (NYT)
posted by semmi (41 comments total)

7 pages!! Bah!!
Does he say it sucks?
Who'se got the condenced version?
(good post)
posted by Balisong at 7:19 PM on July 29, 2005

Maybe he could explain why his colleague Judy Miller was running around Iraq telling the people looking for WMD what to do, and threatening them alternatingly with bad press in the NYT and complaints to her good buddy Don Rumsfeild, the person who assigned her to the specific embed assignment.

*ahem*
posted by delmoi at 7:21 PM on July 29, 2005

Not to derail or anything.

One intresting thing, he claims that liberals and conservatives have diffrent complains about the media. Liberals just think the media sucks balls, and that's why no one watches (or reads), and Conservatives think it's to Liberal.

He also points out the "koran being flushed down the toilet" debacle, when in fact the Korans were mishandled.
posted by delmoi at 7:28 PM on July 29, 2005

"Liberals, including most journalists (because most journalists are liberals)"

Yeah, whatever.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:30 PM on July 29, 2005

Hmm... He also claims CNN tilts to the left.

h4w.
posted by delmoi at 7:30 PM on July 29, 2005

Maybe he could explain why his colleague Judy Miller...

Judy Miller is a reporter. Richard Posner is a federal appeals court judge.
posted by kickingtheground at 7:36 PM on July 29, 2005

Giving a liberal spin to equivocal economic data when conservatives are in power is, as the Harvard economists Sendhil Mullainathan and Andrei Shleifer point out, a matter of describing the glass as half empty when conservatives would describe it as half full.

It seems to me a good newspaper would explain that half full or half empty is still half. If I only get half a glass of water at a restaurant and I ask the why, I don't expect a description of it being half empty or half full, I expect an explanation why it isn't 100% full.
posted by Staggering Jack at 7:37 PM on July 29, 2005

Intresting bit:

The public's interest in factual accuracy is less an interest in truth than a delight in the unmasking of the opposition's errors. Conservatives were unembarrassed by the errors of the Swift Boat veterans, while taking gleeful satisfaction in the exposure of the forgeries on which Dan Rather had apparently relied, and in his resulting fall from grace. They reveled in Newsweek's retracting its story about flushing the Koran down a toilet yet would prefer that American abuse of prisoners be concealed. Still, because there is a market demand for correcting the errors and ferreting out the misdeeds of one's enemies, the media exercise an important oversight function, creating accountability and deterring wrongdoing. That, rather than educating the public about the deep issues, is their great social mission. It shows how a market produces a social good as an unintended byproduct of self-interested behavior.

But, god this guy is wordy.

His basic point seems to be that with lower base costs for starting a news channel, blog, or whatever each individual source will cater to a smaller niche. No longer needing to worry about alienating the middle, each news source becomes more shrill. Thus the current conundrum.

Anyway, it's a bunch of intellectual wankery without any real evidence.
posted by delmoi at 7:40 PM on July 29, 2005

Well that's all well and good, but just how can a Starbucks napkin save the Democratic Party?
posted by jimmy at 7:52 PM on July 29, 2005

The Newspaper Guild has tried for years to enforce hard racial and sexual quotas on newspapers. It gives bonuses to managers who impose racial and sexual quotas.

Journalism schools admit on the basis of racial and sexual quotas.

Both the newspaper industry and journalism schools would love to favor blacks with these quotas, but the realities of black failure in primary and second schools make this impossible.

So, the principle beneficiaries of the quota systems have been white women and white gays.

Journalism schools, and humanities colleges in general, dumped traditiona western liberal education for an education in PC dogma. Thus, in most colleges, the requirement to take a course in U.S. history and western civilization has been dumped in favor of the required course in feminism and queer studies.

This is a system that breeds incompetence, and brings the most incompetent to the top. Think Jayson Blair.

The newspaper industry is killing itself. The outside forces the Times cites are nothing compared to these self-inflicted wounds.

The readership of the Times isn't declining just because the new media are challenging it. Everybody's fed up with the news section of the Times being used to promote a gay rights and feminist agenda. Nobody wants to read it.

I read the New York Post for the sports news, and I ignore the Times. I don't need an indoctrination in PC.
posted by Shouting at 8:01 PM on July 29, 2005

Wow, this Shouting guy makes Paris look like Noam Chomsky.
posted by fungible at 8:08 PM on July 29, 2005

Shouting:

While you may feel that way re: the Times, your statement that no one wants to read it seems false: according to the latest Audit Bureau of Circulation's Top 100, the Sunday edition has 1,680,582 readers, while the Daily News has 835,121 and the Post has 678,086 (nb: the Post only publishes Monday through Friday.)

Also, note that Lachlan Murdoch resigned from NewsCorp today, and rumour has it that the resignation is related to pumped up circulation numbers. As the Post does not participate in the ABC reporting, true numbers for it are more in question than for those papers that do allow auditing.

In addition, most universities require US/Western civ along with a non-Western civ course, as well as some sort of sociology. How this leads to the decline in journalism is a bit beyond me: if I'm covering Africa, would it not be best to have a rudimentary understanding of the history of the continent re: political strife, colonialism and how aid impacts the region?

Lastly, I would be interested in hearing your thought on how gays have benefitted from ANY quota system: at this point, the only quota that seems to affect us is how many laws they can pass making it illegal to be gay before the next presidential election.

But hey, thanks for the insights.
posted by ltracey at 8:20 PM on July 29, 2005

feh. He doesn't really get to the point--if people want to be well-informed, and regular media is failing for one reason or another, or even for one perceived reason or another, why read/watch them? Why isn't the regular media responding to that criticism--one that is across the board, and not simply brushed off by "people really don't want the truth". PressThink does a much much better job on all the issues, i think, than this guy.

Shouting, it's not about WHO is reporting the news or working at papers/stations, it's how they present it. Your statement is offensive as well. The media is not failing because they have white women and white gays on staff.
posted by amberglow at 8:20 PM on July 29, 2005

Is it just me, or are the mefi trolls becoming wordier and less intelligible?
posted by [expletive deleted] at 8:25 PM on July 29, 2005

I'm on page 3 and still looking for some James Carville quotes. That's serious duty bait and switch.
posted by nervousfritz at 8:33 PM on July 29, 2005

Stop Shouting!
posted by Hat Maui at 8:35 PM on July 29, 2005

"the required course in feminism and queer studies"

seriously? did you actually go to college shouting? (i don't mean that to be condescending; i'm really asking.) for what actual facts are worth these days, i did. and i have some complaints about it, but most of them have less to do with all the political bias crap everyone makes so much fuss about, and more to do with how they nickled and dimed me. (seriously? who would pay $50.00 for a 50 page paperback if they didn't have to because it was required for a course?)

i promise nobody i know was ever required to take either of the courses you mention.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 8:51 PM on July 29, 2005

Is it just me, or are the mefi trolls becoming wordier and less intelligible?

Less literate, certainly. Does an author (Shouting) for whom "principle" is an adjective really expect his page-long whining screed about affirmative-action dumbos run amok to carry any weight?
posted by Zurishaddai at 9:09 PM on July 29, 2005

Well, amberglow, I will devote my entire life to attempting to avoid offending you.

You've been well trained in PC police methodology.

I don't care who reports the news. I'm not even against people advocating for feminism or gay rights.

It is an abuse of a reporter's position to use the news pages of The New York Times as an editorial forum for advocating for feminism and gay rights.

The "gays are discriminated against" motif is just foolishness. Nonsense. Isn't happening. Didn't happen in the past. It's a sin to tell a lie. Childish to pretend.

Good night, kiddies.
posted by Shouting at 9:40 PM on July 29, 2005

Last week the National Review had a front page article about the credibility of the media. The illustration was of toilet seats.

I think that says it all for how credible both sides hold the media these days. The right thinks it's too liberal. The left knows it is in no way liberal and certainly not believable without a good deal of personal fact checking along the way.

Way to go mainstream media. Everyone thinks you suck.

Shouting just blows
posted by mk1gti at 9:42 PM on July 29, 2005

I missed something, somewhere: what does the Starbucks napkin signify/reference?
posted by ajr at 9:52 PM on July 29, 2005

It's a sin to tell a lie.

Yeah you people better watch it, I mean, come on, the Aliens w'L C U.

I had the pleasure of hearing some woman on TV try to make that stretch tonite.
posted by nervousfritz at 9:55 PM on July 29, 2005

i promise nobody i know was ever required to take either of the courses you mention.

Well, to earn my (meager) B.A. (from a third-rate school), I had to take classes addressing both "World Cultures" and the "non-dominant perspective." One could avoid either Feminism 101 or Queer Studies, but to do so one had to sign up for "African Americans in Sport," which met at 6:15 on Saturday Morning.

I'm barely exaggerating. Of course, the required English seminars-- "Composition and Rhetoric," and "Advanced Composition"-- chiefly involved watching Paris Is Burning and struggling to determine what kind of PoMo bullshit one would have to write to escape the opprobrium of the ultragay TA who would determine his mark.

So, since I wasn't required to take the specific courses you mention, your point (technically) stands, all-seeing eye dog, but maybe you shouldn't be so glib about it.

And Posner's a bit too authoritarian for my taste, but the bastard's a genius.

To a libertarian, all the news has a statist slant. No one in the "point-counterpoint" segment ever says "we should do nothing," though (to us) it's a perfectly good answer.
posted by Kwantsar at 11:57 PM on July 29, 2005

Richard Posner looks at the world primarily through the lens of economics and boy does it show in this op-ed piece. He starts with the unsupported premise that the traditional media lean more left than ever before. By failing to support this premise he leaves the bulk of his argument undefended and it collapses under its own weight (8 pages worth at that). I still think he is fundamentally correct about the media selling the stories that the public wants to hear rather than using their journalistic judgement to select and report the stories of most importance to the public.

[I had some mean things to say about this shouting guy here but after reading his weblog I just don't have the heart to anymore.]
posted by caddis at 6:10 AM on July 30, 2005

The "gays are discriminated against" motif is just foolishness. Nonsense. Isn't happening. Didn't happen in the past. It's a sin to tell a lie. Childish to pretend.

Ah, yes. In fact, no one has ever been discrimitated against. Anywhere. Alas, a troll is born. The guy's been registered all of two days, and so far, he's posted 18 links decrying the oppressive effect of rampant political correctness, and generally stating how little he cares about the opinions other MeFites. He must care a little. Otherwise, why would he waste his valuable time by posting here? One thing's for sure, don't ever ask him for a cup of coffee.
posted by psmealey at 6:59 AM on July 30, 2005

ugh: discrimitated discriminated
posted by psmealey at 7:03 AM on July 30, 2005

One point this article missed is that while journalists tend to be liberal, those who sign their paychecks are not.
posted by Foosnark at 7:56 AM on July 30, 2005

foosnark: it's lost in all the words, but he does make that point.
posted by psp200 at 9:40 AM on July 30, 2005

sorry, here's a quote:
So politically one-sided are the mainstream media, the right complains (while sliding over the fact that the owners and executives, as distinct from the working journalists, tend to be far less liberal), that not only do they slant the news in a liberal direction; they will stop at nothing to defeat conservative politicians and causes.
posted by psp200 at 9:43 AM on July 30, 2005

The "gays are discriminated against" motif is just foolishness. Nonsense. Isn't happening. Didn't happen in the past. It's a sin to tell a lie. Childish to pretend.

It must take a special kind of stupid to write something like that.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:58 AM on July 30, 2005

foosnark: it's lost in all the words, but he does make that point.

yeah--posner mentions something about the fact that media executives skew conservative often being "slided over"--and then he proceeds to slide over it himself.

i mean, c'mon: when was the last time you had a job where the working stiff's ideas about how to do the job trumped the boss's? obviously the real decisions about what to cover, when, etc., are made by the guys signing the paychecks. not to say the working stiffs aren't allowed to have some say in how they'd like to do their jobs, and of course, a good boss will always make their workers at least feel like their suggestions are taken seriously, but ultimately, it's the bottom line that drives the decision making process. that's how it goes in any line of work, isn't it? if you think i'm oversimplifying or just being cynical, please explain how.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 10:39 AM on July 30, 2005

mentions something about the fact that media executives skew conservative often being "slided over"

oops--this should probably read more like: "mentions how the fact that media executives skew conservative is often "slided over"
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 10:41 AM on July 30, 2005

Journalism schools, and humanities colleges in general, dumped traditiona western liberal education for an education in PC dogma. Thus, in most colleges, the requirement to take a course in U.S. history and western civilization has been dumped in favor of the required course in feminism and queer studies.

Really? I am a graduate of a journalism school and I never had that requirement. Apparently the J-school at IU missed the memo. Here are the current distribution requirements for IU. In case you're wondering about the cultural studies requirement, these are the courses to fulfill that. You will note that nowhere in there is a required course in "feminism and queer studies."
posted by SisterHavana at 10:52 AM on July 30, 2005

Kwantsar: I'm barely exaggerating.

Why is this necessary to make your point? How bout a link to your alma mater's graduation requirements page? Or are you just putting up a straw man?
posted by swell at 1:01 PM on July 30, 2005

If he'd stretched his idea just a bit further, it appears that some sort of Wikipedia for News would be the uber-news organization - it would combine the 12 million reporters with vociferous fact checking against bias.

This creates, however, a news organization a mile wide and an inch deep. No blogger will spend six months building databases of federal road expenditures to do a four-part series because s/he can't afford it and there are no Pulitzer prizes for blogging.

I'd have liked to see him apply economic theory to illustrate what it would take to create incentives for depth.
posted by stevis at 9:43 PM on July 30, 2005

Commercial journalism is just that - commercial. All this lofty talk about the role of journalism as a conduit of truth and a watchdog over ethics is ignoring the fundamental truth of commercial journalism: what goes on the air is what puts the butts on the couch and keeps 'em there for the commercials. So we end up with "journalism" that is increasingly slanted to re-enforce the views and values of their target demographic. The only reason commercial journalism outlets boast about fair and unbiased reporting is because their target demographic values the notion, not because the actually are.

To obtain somewhat fair and somewhat unbiased reporting, journalists should be made to join a sort of priesthood, in which they take vows of poverty, apostasy and political indifference. They could all be paid the same salary, based on some standard multiple of the current minimum wage. (Picture Dan Rather sucking down $40K/year, alongside Geraldo.) Then, the government could provide information outlets from which the journalist's product can be broadcast without ad sponsorship. (And then the truth fairy would come and bless them all with a moment of joy for every true thing they say!)

At least most bloggers write from conviction without the corrupting requirement to pay their bills from it. And it is usually pretty obvious just which way a particular blogger leans - in fact, some make it known up front whether their ship lists to port or starboard. While their core readership shares these leanings, many readers do pop in from opposing camps both to broaden their perspective and (mostly) to attempt to save the heathens from their wrong-headed thinking in the fora. I think that's a huge improvement over commercial journalism. Of course, bloggers still must rely on mainstream news to provide most of their "facts", and I don't see any effective way around that.
posted by gregor-e at 9:51 PM on July 30, 2005

To obtain somewhat fair and somewhat unbiased reporting, journalists should be made to join a sort of priesthood, in which they take vows of poverty, apostasy and political indifference.

if you don't make the publishers, managers and other executives join this priesthood too, it won't do much good. the guys who sign the paychecks will still have final authority over the general direction of the content.
posted by all-seeing eye dog at 6:39 AM on July 31, 2005

The "gays are discriminated against" motif is just foolishness. Nonsense. Isn't happening. Didn't happen in the past. It's a sin to tell a lie. Childish to pretend.

Are you fucking kidding me? This is so inane its not even worth debating. Gays are probably the most-discriminated against minority in the US today. People have been killed for being homosexual. You sound like someone claiming "there is no discrimination against blacks" 60 years ago. You are a disgusting human being.
posted by aerify at 9:58 AM on July 31, 2005

Stirling Newberry has an interesting, long, thoughtful response up at Kos
posted by amberglow at 10:36 AM on July 31, 2005

and Slate weighs in : Judge Posner's Incorrect Verdict
posted by amberglow at 10:23 PM on August 1, 2005

The NYT editor Bill Keller has a scathing letter to the editor in this week's book review castigating Posner's piece. Mmmm.

[Not that anyone will ever see this comment]
posted by caddis at 12:27 PM on August 20, 2005