So I was driving around delivering papers Thursday, and Sean Hannity kept talking about how the liberal media were overplaying the Dick Cheney shooting story. He tossed out the topic off and on for a couple of hours, then promised a complete update on "Hannity and Colmes" Thursday night.
Then Glenn Beck came on, and he was absolutely livid about how the liberal media have overplayed the Dick Cheney shooting story. He talked about nothing else for 45 solid minutes, when I switched him off to listen to the news on NPR.
NPR! The hotbed of liberal media excess. Now I was going to get to hear the real thing, live on radio: The Dick Cheney shooting story overblown by the liberal media itself.
Except, it didn't happen. In the hour that I listened, the Dick Cheney shooting story drew maybe a minute of air time, most of that devoted to the brief remarks President Bush had made about the story earlier that day.
Hard to figure, except for the obvious hypocrisy of Hannity and Beck. Like every other media type on the planet, they knew that the Dick Cheney shooting is great talk radio material: pithy, with a clear-cut plotline, and with rich opportunities for humor and punditry. They couldn't pass up the story, but, as card-carrying conservatives, they couldn't let on that somebody at the White House might actually have screwed up. What to do? Blame the messenger, of course. They milked the story for ratings for at least three hours between time, all the time blasting the MSM for their coverage.
Such inconsistencies heighten my skepticism about commenters below who have such unshakable confidence that this story would have been played differently if Cheney had been a Democrat. Certain stories have a power of their own that pull the media along whether they really want to go or not. While it is easy to say, as commenters have pointed out, that this is not a world-altering story, it is, however, one of those stories that everyone will read or listen to, and nearly everyone will talk about. That sort of widespread appeal trumps media bias every time.
UPDATE: If this topic interests you at all, go read this.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
“They couldn't let on that somebody at the White House might actually have screwed up.”
Would you mind clarifying that statement? Whom are you referring to, and what was the screw up?
David,
Your defense of the guild would make even Helen Thomas proud. Hugh Hewitt interviews Helen
-----------
(HH- Hugh Hewitt HT- Helen Thomas)
HH: Well, it might affect your reporting.
HT: Why isn't...that...because that isn't the way reporters operate. We operate on the news and on the facts.
HH: And you have no bias?
HT: No.
--------
Read the whole interview, it's a barrel of laughs. Or better yet, listen to it. Interview
Say, David, didn’t you just get badly beaten up and virtually hospitalized over this subject in an earlier post? What are you, a conservative punching bag?
Texas lawyer Harry Whittington, bearing bruises and pockmarks from birdshot but considering himself lucky, prepared to leave the hospital on Friday and said the hunting incident in which Vice President Dick Cheney shot him was just an accident.
--Reuters
Let’s take a look at the color photo that accompanied this story. Goodness! Now that’s an EXTREME close-up, Wayne! It’s so close you’d think a dermatologist took it for use in a lecture. Look. It’s cropped so tightly Harry’s big nose hits the right margin. What a profile!
Oh, but what’s this? God. The right side of Harry’s face looks like he got hit with a baseball bat. It’s all yellow and purple and, and—swollen! Are those red holes in his skin? Do they go right through his face?
Nah. That’s an iodine-based antiseptic they painted the side of his face to prevent infection, like the stuff you put on a child’s boo-boo. And those six or eight little red dots? Well, they’re not really holes. They’re just little spots where the tiny BBs broke his skin, more like the zits you got in high school the day before the big dance.
When you consider how little damage this old man’s wrinkly, exposed skin suffered, it sort of makes you wonder how a BB went through his outer clothes, underclothes, skin, and “migrated to his heart.” Maybe Harry was out hunting naked! Somebody ought to investigate that possibility.
Anyway, it was nice to see Harry had enough strength to get himself up off his deathbed, get dressed and travel all the way to Wyoming for a little speech and some politicking. Maybe his healthcare team dressed him and transported him by air ambulance. I don’t know. But he looked pretty good to me.
It was also nice to hear Harry reassure everybody that Vice President Cheney did not shoot him on purpose, that it was “just an accident.” For a while there, I wasn’t too sure from reading the newspaper stories.
*** David’s New Thesis ***
1. The liberal media only gave the people what they wanted, a big tabloid splash about a powerful politician blowing somebody’s head off with a shotgun during a drunken good-old-boy hunting trip in Texas.
2. The conservative media had no idea what the people wanted, so they made up story about the story the people wanted, how the liberal media created a big tabloid splash about a powerful politician blowing somebody’s head off with a shotgun during a drunken good-old-boy hunting trip in Texas.
3. Now the liberal media has stopped talking about the powerful politician who blew somebody’s head off with a shotgun during a drunken good-old-boy hunting trip in Texas, but the conservative media is still stuck on the story about the story.
4. Therefore, the conservative media must be trying to cover up the real story about the powerful politician who blew somebody’s head off with a shotgun during a drunken good-old-boy hunting trip in Texas.
Wiz34,
Two screwups that I can see:
1. The shooting itself. Shooting your hunting partners is never a recommended practice.
2. The White House's hamhanded handling of press relations. Inept PR made this story bigger than it had to be.
David,
I heard from 5 or 6 lawyers that you were drunk when you said you were listening to Glenn Beck and NPR. Why didn't you write about that in your post? huh? What are you covering up? What are you hiding? I smell coverup! Why didn't you admit you were drunk?
Ha ha! I'm just kidding course, but wasn't it funny? Accusing people of being drunk is always good for a laugh!
“1. The shooting itself. Shooting your hunting partners [sic] is never a recommended practice.”
How was the hunting accident in Texas a White House “screw up”? Are you saying the White House ordered the “shooting”? Or are you just trying to be funny?
“2. The White House's hamhanded [sic] handling of press relations. Inept PR made this story bigger than it had to be.”
Totally illogical. The White House cannot control media hysteria when the media is the source of the hysteria. Or are you saying it was the job of the White House to prevent the media from making the story “bigger than it had to be”? If so, what could the White House have done to stop the media from inflating the story?
Wiz34,
By "White House" I mean the Bush administration, not the actual building. Of course it was a screwup, unless you want to argue that Cheney shot him on purpose.
I am still waiting for evidence of "media hysteria." On the last thread, Chris alleged hysteria, but when I asked him to document it, he replied with a lame batch of headlines. The nearest thing I have heard to hysteria was Glenn Beck, and he was probably faking it.
Finally, any PR pro could tell you how to handle a case like this. Get out in front of it immediately, answer all the questions that can be answered, and get Cheney to explain himself. When news dribbles out over several days, that gives the media an excuse to keep playing up the story. No matter how much reporters may like a story, they can't keep pushing it if there is nothing new to report. That's why NPR was down to a minute on Thursday (and then only because Bush provided a fresh angle) while the talk shows kept pounding on it.
The trick is to get all the news out at once (preferably on a weekend), take the fire out of any follow-ups, and don't piss off anybody you can avoid pissing off.
Good PR people do this kind of thing by instinct. But this White House hates the press so much that it can't bring itself to do the smart thing.
I don't see why being a conservative means you have to defend everything these guys do. Everybody screws up.
Well thanks for clearing that up, David. You and the liberal media invent all the rules the White House must follow during a national crisis (read, media hysteria). Then, when the White House fails to follow the rules you have laid down, they “screwed up.”
If the White House really “hates the press,” as you say, it is because the press thinks and acts like a bunch of girls on the verge of puberty.
I find this to be an exceedingly interesting attempt at obfuscation on your part: “By ‘White House’ I mean the Bush administration, not the actual building. Of course it was a screwup [sic], unless you want to argue that Cheney shot him on purpose.”
Not the “actual building”? Whoever said that? You claimed that the “shooting itself” was one of “two screwups” by the White House. Now you are saying that “White House” actually means “Bush administration.” So now the “Bush administration” is responsible for an accidental shooting in Texas?
Is this Mellon again? The slippery rhetoric sure sounds like it. Toss out a racial slur or two so I'll know for sure.
On the off chance that you are a legitimate person, let me try one more serious answer.
1. The liberal media didn't "invent all the rules the White House must follow." The rules I listed are sound, time-honored principles of crisis management. I'm surprised you haven't heard of them.
2. "the press thinks and acts like a bunch of girls on the verge of puberty." What can this possibly mean? Giggling, I suppose. OK, who giggled?
3. "So now the 'Bush administration' is responsible for an accidental shooting in Texas?" Well, a very key member of that administration certainly is.
I've been a cynical critic of the media for many years now, but I think the problems with American news reporting are structural - that is, what is reported is ultimately colored by who owns the press (large corporations), who advertises in the press (large corporations), and who supplies its information (powerful government officials). Reporters want to report. If reporters were the ultimate driving force in our press, we'd have a fine press indeed.
When a story like the Cheney shooting comes up, all bets are off. It's big. Reporters can't be stopped from reporting, and we get very good reporting. Same thing happened with Katrina. They did a remarkable job there. We have no shortage of decent and dedicated people in the press. It's ultimately the people who own the press who determine what we know and believe. On Cheney, they did a bang-up job.
I got my first hint that people were trying to spin the Cheney shooting from Fox news - before Whittington had his heart attack, they reported, I kid you not, that Whittington was laughing about it, that it was a funny joke. Media critics looking for in-your-face bias in reporting ought to look at Fox.
David: Give us an example of what you call a “racial slur,” and I will try my best to toss out a few. But I suspect you cannot give us an example because, like everything else you have written here, you only deal in stock phases, your hope being no one will question them.
Or how about an example of “slippery rhetoric”? No wait a second. I think I might have a good example: That’s when you pretend to have no idea how girls act when they are on the verge of puberty, go on to define how they act as “giggling,” and then ask rhetorically, “Who giggled?”
Now you are claiming the Cheney hunting accident was a crisis that required “crisis management.” But that is merely your perception of the event; however, it is proof positive you were swept up in the liberal media hysteria. Really, though, how ridiculous can you get? You and the liberal media declare a crisis and then demand the White House follow “time-honored principles of crisis management.” You must be joking.
[Memo to All White House Staff: To determine whether the crisis management team should be activated, contact any mass media outlet or David Crisp.]
"NPR! The hotbed of liberal media excess. Now I was going to get to hear the real thing, live on radio: The Dick Cheney shooting story overblown by the liberal media itself."
Both Time and Newsweek are coming out with cover stories this week. The liberal media is out-of-control crazy with this story, and you are pretending this isn't happening?
Janice,
I just read the Newsweek story. I didn't see a single thing in there that sounded out of control or crazy. It recounted the shooting, as a news weekly is obligated to do, as part of a much longer piece on Cheney's secretiveness, authority and his relationship with the public and the press. Even Cheney, I suspect, would find the story fair and judicious.
Reporting news isn't crazy. It's how some people make a living. And no one here has yet suggested the shooting wasn't news. The only issue, I suppose, is how much less the story would have been covered if Cheney were a Democrat.
My guess is about the same. What's your guess? 10 percent? 25 percent? Let's face it: Nobody knows because there is no meaningful precedent. You are asking me to buy your guess as gospel, and I ain't buying.
Wiz34, If you are Mellon, you know exactly what I mean by "racial slur." If you aren't, then you channel him with amazing fidelity.
I'm still waiting for an example of media hysteria. Until you can provide that, nothing you have written merits a response.
Here's hysteria for you:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
paul-hipp/cheneys-
victim-sings_b_15948.html
Main Entry: hys•te•ria
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from English hysteric, adjective, from Latin hystericus, from Greek hysterikos, from hystera womb; from the Greek notion that hysteria was peculiar to women and caused by disturbances of the uterus
1 : a psychoneurosis marked by emotional excitability and disturbances of the psychic, sensory, vasomotor, and visceral functions
2 : behavior exhibiting overwhelming or unmanageable fear or emotional excess (political hysteria)
-- Merriam-Webster Online
***
Either definition seems to fit the liberal media’s coverage of the Cheney hunting accident. Although, the Greek idea that "hysteria was peculiar to women and caused by disturbances of the uterus" seems to be an especially accurate description of the liberal media today.
Any one of the following story elements will cause the sudden onset or intensification of hysterical symptoms in the liberal media:
• A story about a conservative, rich, powerful white male
• A story about alcohol, especially involving beer or distilled spirits (but not wine)
• A story about guns or hunting
So Vice President Cheney has a beer with lunch and goes out hunting. Then somebody gets hurt. What more could the mental cases in the liberal media hope for, expect maybe that somebody got killed?
This is why we’re seeing a nervous breakdown in the liberal media. All their fears and obsessions have come together in a single story, or at least that is what their distorted perception of reality is telling them.
Thus, the Fourth Element of all leftwing hysteria comes into play:
• A story about a conspiracy or cover-up
The editor of Newsweek has already admitted as much in an interview with the Drudge Report, that the liberal media is in the midst of a grand mal seizure because the Fourth Element has now appeared:
"The reason we ultimately decided to stick with [the cover story on Cheney] is not because of the hunting incident [accident] itself--although we did turn up some new details that you might not have read elsewhere [advertising plug]--but because of what it says about the mysterious world of the most powerful vice president of recent times."
Ah, yes, the mysterious world!
[Note: The “new” theme annunciated by the Newsweek editor was actually plagiarized from David Rosen’s essay in “PressThink,” the URL for which David Crisp supplied at the top of this thread. It goes without saying that “PressThink” is not a very creative pun on “groupthink,” but I would like to point out that there is nothing more creative in journalism than reporters reporting what other reporters say. That’s fairly hysterical. Or is that just flat-out insane?]
Former Senator Alan Simpson comments reguarding Cheney's relationship to the press: Link
WALLACE: Fair to say that your friend doesn't have much regard for the mainstream press, sir?
SIMPSON: I tell you, no. I think he has a high regard for the press, but he has a dismissiveness to stupidity. And where it started, where it started was when he and Colin Powell and Pete Williams, their press guy, when he was secretary of defense, answering questions on the first Gulf War, questions like when will you attack, where will the attack take place and how many forces.
Now, you've got to have rock for brains to ask questions like that. And I think at that time he just thought if they're goofy like that, you know, why not just stay away from them.
Hysterical? Who knows. Stupid? Yep.
That's a pretty good Simpson quote, but I like the one reported by Samantha Power in "A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide."
After Iraq invaded Kuwait, the Iraqi government released a transcript of a conversation between Saddam and an American delegation that included Simpson. The transcript was never disputed by anyone in attendance. It quoted Simpson as telling Saddam: “I am now aware that you are a strong and intelligent man and that you want peace. I believe that your problems lie with the Western media and not with the U.S. government. … The press is spoiled and conceited. All these journalists consider themselves brilliant political scientists. They do not want to see anything succeeding or achieving its objectives. My advice is that you allow those bastards to come here and see things for themselves.”
Yeah, shrewd judge of character, that Al.
Since Ed posted his link, I gotta share this one. Speakers on. Go to:
http://cheneyplaysfolsom.cf.huffingtonpost.com/
Attack of the Femocrats!
Is dry vagina syndrome contagious?
Ed,
If Simpson said those things in that context, you're right he sure misread that situation. Perhaps Simpson was among the many fooled by Saddam. There is still people in the U.S. today that think Saddam wasn't such a bad acter. By the way, do any of you local scribes have any comments on the case The New York Times, Co v. Sullivan (1964) and it's ramifications on the relationship between the "press" and political figures?
As far as Samantha Power' book "A Problem From Hell: America and the Age of Genocide." goes, it appears, from reading the reviews on Amazon, that Samantha was dismayed at the lack of U.S. effort in fighting genocide in several nations. I would think that Samantha would be supportive of the Bush doctrine. Samantha wrote ""no U.S. president has ever suffered politically for his indifference to its occurrence. It is thus no coincidence that genocide rages on." So do you think President Bush has suffered from his LACK OF INDIFFERENCE, at least in the Iraq arena? It seems that agreeing with Samantha would indicate that one is inclined to be for increasing American military aggressiveness, which is not the tone from today's left side.
The book sounds like a good read, but given it's age, I'm not sure it'll get on my reading list, which keeps growing. Right now I'm reading Ann Coulter's How to talk to a Liberal, if you Must and Mark Levin's Men in Black. So far both are great reads.
Rich - speaking of being fooled by Saddam, have you ever heard of Heydar Aliyev, Nursultan Nazarbayev, or Musharraf? These are bloody tin pot dictators, guilty of brutal repression, but pro-US, and off our radar screen. You only know about Saddam being evil because our government wants you to know this. You are both a victim and purveyor of propaganda.You are oh so typically American.
Mark T,
I'm not sure what you're getting at, unless you think we should be overthrowing all tinpot dictators in the world.
What I do sense though is an undercurrent from you that it's not ok for the United States to look after it's own best interests. Disagree with how it's done all you want, but are you saying we shouldn't be looking after our best interests at all? Forgive me if I don't know where you're coming from, but I usually don't pay that much attention to what you write.
Rich,
Actually, I talk about New York Times vs. Sullivan every fall in my journalism class. My advice to students: Don't worry about it. The public figure rule applies only when reporters have acted with actual malice, i.e, they knew the story was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Since no reporter should ever do either of those things, NYT vs. Sullivan shouldn't be an issue.
Is that a gay journalism class?
Rich - just thinking about what it would take to get your attention. I'll pass.
I have a similar website tied to acne Come by some time.
I surely fancy your site, It's bookmarked! This post is terrific stuff.
Post a Comment