Morning Ed: Media {2016.05.30.M}

A Katie Couric documentary rather deceptively edited an interview with gun control opponents, a conservative website “claims” (and also, actually, demonstrates).

Jesse Singal writes about Ben Shapiro’s messy divorce with Breitbart.

Some of y’all may not realize it, but Salon was once a strong voice on the left and in our culture, giving rise to among other people Jake Trapper. What happened?

Come on, people, Trump says enough ridiculous things and does enough bad things without the media having to make it up.

The interesting history of the CIA vs Random House.

It turns out, with regard to Rush Limbaugh, Sandra Fluke may have had the last laugh.

Sara Israelsen-Hartley writes about the conflict between news and the right to be forgotten.


Editor-in-Chief
Home Page Twitter Google+ Pinterest 

Will Truman is a former professional gearhead who is presently a stay-at-home father in the Mountain East. He has moved around frequently, having lived in six places since 2003, ranging from rural outposts to major metropolitan areas. He also writes fiction, when he finds the time. ...more →

Please do be so kind as to share this post.
Share

29 thoughts on “Morning Ed: Media {2016.05.30.M}

  1. Re Trump and the media, this isn’t so much making it up as cramming it into the established narrative. This is what the media does. It shouldn’t, but providing context and stuff is a lot harder work, and the media collectively isn’t up to the task. This also isn’t partisan. It goes in both directions: Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet! Har, har, har! What a liar! And so on. This is why campaigns work so hard to establish the narrative they want. Trump, for all his vaunted media savvy, established this narrative all on his own, and has to live with it.

    Report

    • Yes and no… long slog through the article, but it doesn’t really say what its writers want it to say – unless by “in trouble” it means that Rush’s next expected long term contract will drop from $38M/year to an estimated $15M-$20M/ year. It’s a little bit like the baseball article that Richard wrote… changing revenue streams are hitting media across the board. The link to Fluke is a buried lede:

      [after the Fluke incident] JCPenney PR executive Kate Coultas explains this via email. “We [now] have a general ‘no run’ policy in place to not advertise on any kind of political program,” Coultas writes.

      Its more of an RTod point that all political media is becoming toxic… Politico seems to establishh that the Fluke episode was indeed a defining moment, but one that is hitting all Political talkshows:

      The Sandra Fluke incident “did a lot of harm to talk radio,” Darryl Parks says. “Thirty-eight percent of revenue disappeared overnight.” And the damage was not limited to Limbaugh; he hurt all of talk radio, including even some liberal hosts.

      Rush’s was just the instigator and the biggest by percentage to suffer…owing not in a small part to the actual costs he charges to carry his show – hence the fact that while still profitable, his next contract will need to address the changes to the market (and his aging demographic).

      Rush is going to take a haircut and will have to make due with merely obscene amounts of money instead of obnoxiously odious amounts of money.

      This was not the article Political wanted us to think it wrote.

      {Virtue signaling, I’ve never listened to Rush… the only time I remember ever watching something was in his early days during the Perot/Clinton/Bush cycle – everyone was all about Charts, and Rush was no exception.}

      Report

      • Ya know, having the public in general treat you as toxic enough to cost you about half your annual revenue because of some stupid crap you said is a pretty substantial chunk out of ones ass. Sure, he can still afford all the prescription painkillers his addiction demands, but his bank account, and his voice, are both deservedly diminished.

        The fact that it also helped to make other toxic political talk less appealing to advertisers is a bonus.

        Report

  2. On the Couric thing… given all that we’ve learned in the past decade about Jon Stewart shows “cleverly” editing the cut that hits the air; and, given the ubiquity of cheap video and audio recording devices – why would anyone who was asked to speak on any controversial subject not simultaneously record the entirety of their time with the media?

    Its pretty clear that there are over 4 minutes of responses (some good, some bad, some ugly) to that single question.

    My question is more about the process than the incident… do folks not take precautions? Does the media team not let them? Do folks take precautions, but 99% of the time no one ever cares enough to run the contrary evidence?

    {I like Jon Stewart}

    Report

    • The Couric thing is actually pretty scary. Not that it happened (which is not really new for network news) but that there’s been no apology, retraction, or even clarification after getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar (which is).

      Just one more piece of data showing that the talk radio/blog/infotainment model is slowly course correcting journalism, and not the other way around.

      Report

      • Less than a year into Couric’s reign as anchor of the evening news she was busted for plagiarizing a Wall Street Journal article about that writer’s personal experiences of libraries and the importance of reading and presenting those thoughts as her own. She’s got a track record here, man!

        Report

      • Couric is quite partisan. Partisan media figures don’t care about credibility anymore. The true believers and the casual audience will forgive and forget, and the the opposition never believes them anyhow, so why bother?

        Report

      • Couric is on Yahoo. She’s more new media than old. If she was still in old media, she’s likely have to do a Lara Logan style retraction/suspension.

        Report

    • “My question is more about the process than the incident… do folks not take precautions? Does the media team not let them? Do folks take precautions, but 99% of the time no one ever cares enough to run the contrary evidence?”

      I think that there was a sense that the media was actually in the business of providing news and not shaping news. As we know that is no longer true – from both sides of the political fence* – coupled with the ability to record your interviews cheaply and this is the new normal.

      *BSDM!

      Report

  3. Here’s an excuse for treating Trump unfairly, “Welcome to a presidential campaign, everyone gets treated unfairly with selective editing.”

    Report

  4. “I think a ‘social-justice warrior’ is someone who is offended by a basic fact — they think a social-justice warrior is just anybody who is offended ever, for any reason.”

    Ha.

    Report

Comments are closed.