quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Not that I disagree with you, but if you look at this in a wider perspective than just the 15 minutes of Dubya roasting, namely also the full assault on the US press that constituted the last 10 minutes of his routine, how would you then rate this as paradigmatically challenging? Sure, Stewart did the Crossfire thing, but apart from that, has anyone so vocally made it clear that the laurels the US press is sitting on has gone bad? Has anyone forced the press to look at its own role in allowing the Bush administration to fuck you up? I think the answer to those questions are "no", and that at the same time is the reason why the MSM has mostly ignored or put down what I see as a good performance.

Here is my honest opinion: You don't affect change in a western, democratic press by pointing out flaws in the press. Yes the US press could be more hostile but it's not missing out on critical deficiencies that make it irrelevant or demonstrably sub par. Are there scoops that the main european press is getting that the US isn't ? You affect change by drawing more audience and getting better stories with good newscasting and reporting. This is what Murrow did in the 50's. If what Colbert did is the latest trend in journalistic evolution I'm going to be extremely depressed.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Here is my honest opinion: You don't affect change in a western, democratic press by pointing out flaws in the press. Yes the US press could be more hostile but it's not missing out on critical deficiencies that make it irrelevant or demonstrably sub par. Are there scoops that the main european press is getting that the US isn't ? You affect change by drawing more audience and getting better stories with good newscasting and reporting. This is what Murrow did in the 50's. If what Colbert did is the latest trend in journalistic evolution I'm going to be extremely depressed.

I don't think we disagree much - I'm just saying that harsh public criticism of the press such as delivered by Colbert, I haven't seen before, and therefore, the appearance *could* be indicative of a new trend (or a paradigm shift if you prefer those terms).

With regards to the side issue about the "big scoops" and the European press, I think that the Downing Street Memo took some time to get to the US press? In any case, the members of the European press have traditionally been openly politically aligned, and do not strive for the appearance of objectivity, which to me seems to be the case in the US. Moreover, the importance of a "scoop" is not of as great importance over here (maybe because people often consult the press to get their view on the matter, c.f. the part about being openly political, rather than the actual piece of news), and consequently, reporters are harder to bully by threatening to talk to other reporters first in the future. I remember a case from december where the Bush administration had been trying to get papers to hold back on some stories, and in the end managed to convince the editors that certain parts should be left out. I have a hard time imagining that sort of thing happening in Denmark. It would be the death of any politician who was caught in interfering with the press (see e.g. the former Swedish foreign minister).

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I don't think we disagree much - I'm just saying that harsh public criticism of the press such as delivered by Colbert, I haven't seen before, and therefore, the appearance *could* be indicative of a new trend (or a paradigm shift if you prefer those terms). With regards to the side issue about the "big scoops" and the European press, I think that the Downing Street Memo took some time to get to the US press? In any case, the members of the European press have traditionally been openly politically aligned, and do not strive for the appearance of objectivity, which to me seems to be the case in the US. Moreover, the importance of a "scoop" is not of as great importance over here (maybe because people often consult the press to get their view on the matter, c.f. the part about being openly political, rather than the actual piece of news), and consequently, reporters are harder to bully by threatening to talk to other reporters first in the future. I remember a case from december where the Bush administration had been trying to get papers to hold back on some stories, and in the end managed to convince the editors that certain parts should be left out. I have a hard time imagining that sort of thing happening in Denmark. It would be the death of any politician who was caught in interfering with the press (see e.g. the former Swedish foreign minister).

Well let me ask you something ... is there a "Colbert" or "Stewart" among the European press? Have there been issues or scandals in America that have been treated differently in coverage than the European press coverage of European scandals? For example, how has the French Clearstream affair been treated differently? I'm genuinely curious. I read the Washington Post, the Economist, and the BBC and to be frank, I can barely differentiate the three except that the economist doesn't take any efforts to hide its less than objective stance on issues (which is refreshing because they're not afraid to say what they think). I agree with respect to the NY times holding back the wiretapping story at Bush's request. That is something I wouldn't expect the European press to do, and I was rather astonished that the NY times agreed to do. Particularly since it was not pertinent to national security in any way whatsoever.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Particularly since it was not pertinent to national security in any way whatsoever.

well that explains why you place less emphasis on objectivity in your choice of press. funny, because i think you are one of the more objective posters in this forum.

that statement tells me a lot about what you find newsworthy or sources you consider newsworthy, and what you find gratification of whatever self important philosophies you hold.

i know that sounds harsh (i am a little tipsy on cheap wine) but i consider it something we are all guilty of.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo well that explains why you place less emphasis on objectivity in your choice of press. funny, because i think you are one of the more objective posters in this forum. that statement tells me a lot about what you find newsworthy or sources you consider newsworthy, and what you find gratification of whatever self important philosophies you hold. i know that sounds harsh (i am a little tipsy on cheap wine) but i consider it something we are all guilty of.

Let's make sure we have perfect clarification here (I've consumed an ungodly amount of smirnoff and I want to make sure edifictation is at the forefront), I regarded the NY times rationale for withholding the NSA story as unfounded because it had very little basis to be withheld from the press from a national security standpoint. Is there any reason why it should have been? Is there any justification whatsoever to believe that terrorists did not believe that the NSA, CIA, and SIGINT were NOT devoted towards ferreting out their operations? Is there any substantive theory that they did not know about loopholes in FISA that they can NOW, currently exploit??? I find it VERY newsworthy that our government is conducting domestic espionage in what I perceive to be in violation of the law. I could care less what leaning this government is on paper. I take issue with what they are actually doing in person.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Well let me ask you something ... is there a "Colbert" or "Stewart" among the European press?

Hmm. In Denmark there is a couple of shows - both of them by real reporters - which take the stand-up comedian/talkshow host angle on current politics, but I wouldn't compare that with Stewart and Colbert (whom I see mainly as comedians, with a passionate hate for Washington). Come to think of it, I think that maybe in Denmark, comedians are the ones that have to strive for objectivity - practically all the popular ones have fans on both the left and the right, and they try to cater to both groups. The press, on the other hand, when writing heavily commented pieces, write solely for people who share their perception.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Have there been issues or scandals in America that have been treated differently in coverage than the European press coverage of European scandals? For example, how has the French Clearstream affair been treated differently?

Hmm, I don't follow the French press much (as I don't understand the language) except for those stories that make it onto EuroNews. To be totally honest, though, I don't understand your question: Do you want examples of US-scandals that have been treated differently in European press or of European scandals? I do have examples of the European press being vicious in targetting European politicians and companies. In Denmark it is not uncommon for a minister to be replaced because of irregularities dug up by the press. In these very weeks, we have a mayor and MP who's probably going to spend time in jail because of creative accounting - a case discovered by reporters. We also have court cases running on our current PM and previous PM for violating our constitution (although none of the cases seem to be successful). I think that contrasts with the consequences one see in the US (at least as they appear through the blogs I read and the Daily Show). It appears that no-one is going to face trial because of the wiretappings. The oil-executives are not going to be confronted with illegal collaboration. The Plame-gate affair stops at Libby. And - what I find problematic - there seems to be no outrage in the MSM. We haven't have scandals of quite the same callibre in Denmark, but our media keeps digging in those cases that we do have.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I read the Washington Post, the Economist, and the BBC and to be frank, I can barely differentiate the three except that the economist doesn't take any efforts to hide its less than objective stance on issues

I think the BBC's opinion is pretty clear when you contrast its stories with how they're reported elsewhere. Omissions tend to be made, whenever the story in full supports a right wing policy.

You know, despite how well or not well Stephen did at the speech. The truely classic moment is when just as Stephen Colbert was being intruduced, President Bush turned his head slowly towards Stephen. It was the most classic "oh-shit-I-don't-know-about-this-guy" head turn I've seen in a while.

That enough made it good.

___________________
Soundcloud

Last edited by wrzonance on May-24-2006 at 15:42