Comments on: Every newspaper is a glass house

By: Sam Penrose

Sam Penrose — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 00:28:18 +0000

As Moneyrunner observes, the much bigger deal is the way mainstream journalism is dominated by the access-for-sympathy trade. Witness the appalling NYT Sunday Mag article on CA’s upcoming gubernatorial race: 7,500 words of what-it’s-like-to-schooze-with-Arnie-and-Gavin, and 500 on the underlying issues.

By: Patrick Carroll

Patrick Carroll — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 04:12:08 +0000

What’s the problem, exactly?

The Post decided to monetize its business model, nothing more nor less.

The shock, I guess was the decision to go public with what was known to be an open lie, right?

By: Ken Hahn

Ken Hahn — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 21:09:09 +0000

The lapdog media sold its soul long ago. Like the other two subsidiaries of the Liberal Intellectual Elite, academia and the Democratic Party, the media currently exist only to inform the hoi polloi of the will of our betters. The Post scandal didn’t happen for the right reason, bias and self righteous denial. It happened because they tried to profit directly.

The elite media in this country are about as reliable as Pravda or Volkische Beobacter. That’s okay, it’s their right to publish anything they want. It’s the demand on their part that I accept them as impartial observers that irritates me. They are not, and they never have been. The press was rabidly partisan for most of the country’s history and they admitted it. The myth that the are less partisan now can only provoke laughter.

Journalists are not a kind of saints that can lay aside their experiences and prejudices. They, like all of us, color everything they write or say with who they are. It’s time we stopped pretending that a degree in journalism has any value other than practice in writing grammatically correct articles.

By: Demosthenes

Demosthenes — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:04:34 +0000

For a sliding scale of $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post was caught recently offering access to off the record, non-confrontational access to “those powerful few” — Obama administration officials and members of Congress. This is clearly professional lobbying.

Such activity would ordinarily be perfectly legal, except that the Washington Post has not registered as a federal lobbyist, as required by law.

In addition the Washington Post must now prominently and clearly identify itself as a for-profit lobbying firm, with a disclaimer at the top of its front page. Such a disclaimer must notify Post readers to the fact that the Post is in the business of selling access to the Obama Administration.

By: Muir Nails It Again « Buttle’s World

Muir Nails It Again « Buttle’s World — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:54:45 +0000

[...] not, of course, just the WaPo. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Chris Muir nails it again Leave a [...]

By: Kevin R.C. O'Brien

Kevin R.C. O'Brien — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:50:45 +0000

What I thought most interesting about the exposed WaPo deal was that it sold access not only to Post editors and publishers, but also to unnamed Administration bigs.

If I recall correctly, the politicians dropped the hot potato even faster than the paper did, although (as is the norm these days) anything embarrassing to the Administration wasn’t much covered.

The only people who think the news media aren’t corrupt are in the media. Just like the only ones who think that Congress isn’t corrupt are in Congress. The difference is that politicians have the capacity as well as desire to live like Louis XVI, and papers are just trying to hang on, on the crumbs dropped from Louis’s table.

Exercise for the reader: drop some crumbs and see what sort of creatures they attract.

By: SomeOtherSteve

SomeOtherSteve — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 13:39:35 +0000

I have to agree with Stan. It reminds me of an old joke.
A man walks up to a beautiful lady in a bar and strikes up a coversation with her. Soon he asks, “Would you sleep with me for $1 million?”
The lady looks at the gentleman closely. He isn’t too hard on the eyes, so she replies, “Sure. Why not?”
He then asks, “Okay, how about for $20?”
With righteous indignation she raises her voice and says, “What kind of woman do you think I am?”
To which he replies, “Madam, we’ve already established what you are. Now we are just haggling over the price.”
Indeed, journalism has sold out long ago. Now is just haggling over the price.

By: Moneyrunner

Moneyrunner — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 13:34:10 +0000

Of course getting access in return for favorable coverage – see Saddam Hussein and CNN – is par for the course. It’s also true for the US media.

Why do we think that NBC-ABC-CBS have been given such wonderful access while FOX is slagged by The Won in his staged interviews and staged town hall meetings-?

It’s just the first time anyone put a specific price tag on their corruption. Like a hooker who advertises her price on her skirt, no need to guess at the price of the Washington Post’s virtue.

By: stan

stan — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 12:57:30 +0000

If journalists actually “spoke from the heart”, we’d know for sure (rather than simply surmising) that 90% or more have been actively producing propaganda to advance the interests of the Democratic Party. I doubt that would cause at least half of the public to pile on a little less mercilessly.

Journalism’s problem is that it’s practitioners have been corrupt for so long that there’s no virtue left to sell.