|
|
February 6, 2009
It Took 23 Years, But I Finally Got to Give My View of the National Press on National TelevisionI was a guest on Bill Moyers Journal (PBS, Feb. 6) along with Salon's Glenn Greenwald. We talked about pundits and reporters as an establishment institution, and whether Obama can be a disruptive force.The segment was 22 minutes: three people at a table puzzling through the week’s events, and trying to set them within larger patterns. Watch here. Transcript is here. My main reason for posting is to open a comment thread for those who watched and might have something to say. So go ahead. I recalled for Moyers how Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s deputy, later described the people running the Bush White House as radicals. Wilkerson’s piece is reproduced here. That Wilkerson—an insider, a Republican—might have been right was too much for the category mind of the press. His description got consigned to the sphere of deviance. Was that necessary? I say no. The predicate for my appearance on Bill Moyers Journal was this PressThink post, Audience Atomization Overcome (Why the Internet Weakens the Authority of the Press) and a subsequent podcast interview with Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com about the arguments I therein. Moyers has big ears. He heard it, and the show was born. Audience Atomization Overcome is probably PressThink’s most-linked-to and discussed post ever— in the political blogosphere. Just scroll through the After Matter section to see what I mean. In the political press-o-sphere, not a word was said about it. Literally. I have been studying the national press since I received my PhD in 1986. This is the first time I have been able to unfold my own view of it on national television. So thank you very much, Bill Moyers and PBS. It felt great. (Here’s a speech Moyers gave to the Media Reform Conference that I recommend often to young journalists. “It’s your fight now. Look around. You are not alone.”) Thanks to Glenn Greenwald for posting and podcasting about my writings and lending his platform—one of the biggest in blogging—to some of my words. I like Glenn because he is serious about what he does. PressThink readers who missed the show can watch it online and tell me what you think.
Posted by Jay Rosen at February 6, 2009 11:57 PM
Comments
Jay, Posted by: Rob at February 7, 2009 12:18 AM | Permalink I agree with Rob...I'm watching now and love the way Bill Moyers informs us. Posted by: Gary at February 7, 2009 12:24 AM | Permalink I thought you were great. I reflexively think of the media as "liberal", but it was enlightening to consider they are merely part of the institution. Loved the point about behaviorism. Best, Posted by: Maryann Sasaki at February 7, 2009 12:31 AM | Permalink Great that Bill gave you a louder platform to point out the corrosive effects of the Washington bubble, of which the national media are so important a part. A shame that the discussion of the possible impact of the internet was so brief at the end there. Nevertheless, I think what came over quite strongly was the sense that this is a moment of real potential for change, for fracture in the ideological hegemony of the establishment, for ideas otherwise readily dismissed as 'radical' or 'far left' or simply laughable to finally get a hearing in the public sphere. Because the public sphere itself has become a more contested, dynamic, and fractious place, which is all to the good. Nice work all round. How can I best communicate my support to the Obama administration so that they do not weaken in their resolve to institute massive stimulus which includes the necessary support to the states, the deep funding for education and the funding of computerized national medical records and ultimately national medical insurance? Posted by: Anne Herman at February 7, 2009 12:40 AM | Permalink J A Y, I just finished watching you and Glen on The Journal. Yeah! Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!. Posted by: David at February 7, 2009 12:45 AM | Permalink Jay, Posted by: jan SCHMIDT at February 7, 2009 12:49 AM | Permalink Hey Jay, It takes a while to get the hang of TV and I fear your threads were too thoughtfully long for TV. I hate to say this (hate it hate it) but.. maybe chunking them into smaller bits would make it more understandable for ppl not familiar with your blog, thoughts and ideas. I read you already so I knew what you were talking about, but I played it just now in a room full of ppl on a big screen and I stopped to discuss and explain now and then. Your ideas are radical and necessary for sure. And while it may take time, i know these thoughts and your work will succeed. But i saw the wideness of where many smart ppl are, and where this blog is now, with new eyes. But overall I really liked it! Congrats! Posted by: mary hodder at February 7, 2009 1:04 AM | Permalink After following your Twitter stream, it was certainly interesting to see a more animated version of @jayrosen_nyu. The one point that truly struck a chord with me was the narrative that you (in response to Moyer's question) said wasn't being told: that the political class cannot solve the problems it created. Ancillary question: was there a reason you and Glenn Greenwald almost never addressed each other directly, even when referencing a point the other made? It made it feel less like natural conversation and more like journalistic theatre. Posted by: Steven Walling at February 7, 2009 1:09 AM | Permalink Another great reason for watching Bill Moyers. You and Glenn greenwald clearly spelled out why we seldom get the facts, even though it is discouraging. Glad to find your blog and will check in often.thank you Posted by: Donna Daniel at February 7, 2009 1:10 AM | Permalink Solid progress with the Moyers appearance, I say. The atomization article has been the basis of my thought pattern for a couple weeks now and I encourage everyone to keep linking to it. The incestuous Establishment-Press Corps dynamic is *the* obstacle facing Obama and his movement. I'm now convinced that citizen journalism is in fact the only way out of this hell. Just like Obama supporters felt compelled to step outside our comfort zones and go canvassing during the campaign, it's now imperative to use every venue we have to nitpick the establishment and its media lapdogs, and to demand radical transparency a la Jeff Jarvis and the FOIA override proposal. Posted by: Daniel Doyle at February 7, 2009 1:18 AM | Permalink the political class cannot solve the problems it created. Awesome! you have a new reader Jay. Posted by: normd Great to see you on Moyers, tonight. I have long been a reader of Glenn's and and happy to add your site to my daily reading. I hope that you are right about the two way nature of the internet being able to finally get the attention of those in the beltway - both from elected class and the media. Moyers closing comments nailed the sentiment I think so many are feeling -"life is not fair but it might be a little more fair if the shackles of despair were attached to the well heeled." (I paraphrase). Good luck to you and all of us toward that day of slightly increased fairness.... Posted by: ChuckB at February 7, 2009 1:25 AM | Permalink How do you recommend people support / influence Obama to keep his campaign promises? On Bill Moyers show, it was said only pressure from those who elected Obama can help him make change. How? For example, how to I contact Oboma online? And once I do, does anyone have key 'talking points' for this week's challenges? Any suggestions? Posted by: Melanie at February 7, 2009 2:07 AM | Permalink Why is it that Rush Limbaugh can continually broadbrush "The Media" with the endlessly pejorative Liberal label? He is as much of the entrenched media as any journalist from the New York Times. American citizens have much to think about. We can no longer be non-thinking, slavish idealogues. Posted by: Peter LaTorre at February 7, 2009 2:10 AM | Permalink I think President Obama is trying very hard to fix this huge mess. However, I believe he is going about it the wrong way. He is listening to the "experts", but wasn't it these "experts" who played a huge part in creating this mess to begin with? I think he should get some feedback from us, the taxpayers, the ones losing their homes, their jobs, the ones who aren't sure how they will buy food next week. I'm sorry, but I just don't understand how people who are making millions of dollars a year know what it is like out here. President Obama wants to trim the fat in our government, yet he is asking the people who are enjoying that fat to cut it. He should ask the average Joe how to trim the fat, after all,, we are the ones doing without to make ends meet. We aren't flying in private jets, we are telling our children they can't particapate in a activity because the family has to cut cost in order to make ends meet. We are the ones who know how to trim the fat, mostly because we didn't have it to begin with. Right now the "American Dream" is gone. Right now, at this point in time, my children have no hope of owning their own home. They have very, very little hope of having a stable future for their families. And the reason why, as I see it, is because there are a few in high places who want more and more money,and they are willing to do anything to get more. This is the month we celebrate President Lincoln, honest Abe, what happened to putting honest people in these positions of power. And why are there people making careers in Washington. That is not what are Founding Fathers intented, and that is another reason our country is in this mess. When I was in school I was told,"Get your education, and you can get a good job, a job that will be safe, you won't have to worry about layoffs like your dad" And let, with my education I have no job, and the jobs I apply for I'm either over educated, which by the way means that the new boss is afraid you will take their job, or that I'm not educated enough. So what did all that money, and time get me. Nothing! And that is exactly what I see in the future for my children. Posted by: Sharon at February 7, 2009 2:32 AM | Permalink I’ve been e-mailing Washington, (senator/candidate/President) Obama, and the major newspaper editors now for over a year, on what issues I know (or feel) need to be addressed. After seeing you and Glenn Greenwald on The Journal, I don’t feel like such a nut anymore...sorta. Thank you for your incredible insight into what I was up to - but didn’t myself - see. Posted by: Olaf Brescia at February 7, 2009 2:38 AM | Permalink Excellent discussion. Throughout I recalled when I was a news cameraperson in DC in the '80s and how the TV "reporters" would walk around the White House using their "TV voices" all the time. Posted by: Bob at February 7, 2009 6:36 AM | Permalink While it was refreshing to have Jay Rosen's and Glenn Greenwald's views on the current state of political journalism aired on national television, I found an unfortunate omission in the discussion - the ties of political media to corporate elites. Mainstream media doesn't exist in a vacuum. Behind every powerful newspaper, mainstream news reporter, and television journalist lies an equally powerful corporation with interests in the status quo, and contributions to the political parties, pulling the levers. How convenient to omit this because PBS is itself supported by some of these corporations. Rosen and Greenwald's got it partially right but by presenting their ideas in this disingenuous manner, viewers were at least partially misled. Posted by: ltdunn at February 7, 2009 6:57 AM | Permalink 4th Estate, social change, or propaganda? What we are taught, controls what we do. Paraphrasing Lenin, but a lesson from history. Or why you think you have controlled schools in the Catholic/Christian, Muslim and like faiths? "An educated, informed and active citizenry; is hard to fool or enslave." Sadly we are badly educated, misinformed and even deliberately lied to, and then we wonder why we do little, have apathy and then wonder why we are in a camp waiting for a shower? 5th estate then is the bureaucracy, namely those who no matter who is in "power" have a job and really control things. Mainstream media, have control of the airwaves, cable and internet. After all, they are controlled by corporate bodies, many who often seem to be monopolies? Example, where did the presidents war powers act go, that limits the president to 100,000 troops for a limited time, but congress keeps talking about ending the war, but they have the power, they just have to say NO, and the above act supposedly comes in play? Wag the Dog - way to dodge the issues and take peoples attention else wheres.. What connections does Pelosi and Cheney have when it comes to the major corporations that are part of the war machine? Pelosi - husband a military contractor? Cheney former VP of Haliburton (major contracts, cause they was the only ones who could do it? as well as wife supposedly on the board of Lockheed? Lockheed that was going into the red before 2003? US is watching China on control of the internet, after all, what is next? Oil/Gas and distribution, until we get the major power providers demanding changes, nothing much will really happen when it comes to green, gas/fuel and move to better cars? Oil/Gas and Auto companies love the status quo. Ever read a book by H.Beam Piper "Lord Kalvan" about a alternate reality where a minor healing religion finds out how to make gunpowder and then moves to control the way/means of using gunpowder, so the guns they have are very inefficient, why, so you have to burn more gunpowder, and they have a monopoly on things, so they dictate who is in power, if you go against them, you suddenly find yourself invaded. Sounds familiar? or not? Mike Posted by: Mike Adams at February 7, 2009 7:31 AM | Permalink I always look forward to Bill Moyers unconventional perspective, as well as his unconventional guests. Both the names Jay Rosen and Glenn Greenwald are not unfamiliar to like-minded liberal, political junkies -however, I was almost as taken aback -pleasantly, I might add- as was Bill Moyers when Jay ever so casually replied that part od the problem with our infamous MSM is that "journalists are primarily Behaviorists..." "Wow," I thought to myself -and Bill Moyers said "what did you say?" I'm sorry it took this long to make your mainstream debute -but I am not at all surprised that it came about through the efforts of Bill Moyers... He is truly an institution in his own right... Keep up the good work... Lawrence-in-Oregon Posted by: lawrence at February 7, 2009 7:44 AM | Permalink Thanks to the three of you last evening. I found the discussion enlightening. Problem is that most people only listen to and believe what the mainstream press gives them to digest. Sound bites do not add to ones knowledge at all. Posted by: Barbara at February 7, 2009 8:08 AM | Permalink Congrats, Jay! Thanks for the excellent discussion- can we have more of this, please? I can't know if those in power are listening back, but at least we can hear each other, and so maybe it doesn't matter quite so much if they do or they don't. Let's make them irrelevant! Posted by: Cougarhutch at February 7, 2009 9:01 AM | Permalink I live and work in Hudson, New York. Posted by: Linda Mussmann at February 7, 2009 9:22 AM | Permalink Allow me to be a contrarian here. While I respect your overall views on the media, when it comes to specifics, I think your politics interferred with your message. For instance, you said "And one of the reasons why Daschle concluded that he had to go was that his own actions kind of undermine the spirit of Obama's own message." Sorry, but I don't buy it. Daschle isn't an idiot -- he knew what Obama's "message" was, and that he "undermined the spirit" of that message going in. If you look at the reporting, its clear that there were people very close to Obama who were leaking damaging information to undermine Daschle. Daschle is savvy enough to read the writing on the wall -- that even if he succeeded in getting confirmed, it would be a pyrrhic victory at best, because Daschle would from that point on be defined by the "scandals" and "questions" surrounding him. And Senators weren't "stunned" that Daschle withdrew because of the "probabilities seemed to be that Daschle would get [confirmed]". They were stunned because Team Obama had orchestrated a showing of public support for Daschle by Obama and prominent Senators the day before. They went out on a limb for Daschle, despite his tax problems, and then Daschle withdraws his nomination for no obvious reason (The "Daschle tried to get Hindery the Commerce job" story that appeared in the Times that morning wasn't the kind of earth-shaking scandal that would force a withdrawal; as I noted above, it was the obvious source of the story that lead Daschle to withdraw.) Indeed, Greenwald's observations were so tainted by his own ideology that they detracted from the overall impact of the piece. Your critique of the media is based on process and structure -- and while it may be colored by your politics/ideology, it maintains its value as a critique of the media. And unfortunately, because Greenwald was agreeing with you and expanding on what you had to say, your process/structural critique came off as far more political/ideological than what your regular readers have come to expect.
Posted by: p.lukasiak I was glad to hear you on the Bill Moyers program. You have captured the essence of what we need to do now. Emphasize "we, the people". The internet and blogs do open up the playing field. I remain suspicious of polls and their impact on shaping public opinion. These are activist times and we must be heard. Politics as usual will not work! Thank you for your work!!! Posted by: Martha at February 7, 2009 10:58 AM | Permalink I have watched you twice now. The question about demonstrating came up and I'm sad to say that our country has systematically made it almost impossible to gather and have our say without a permit and in some cases pay. Our rights have been almost taken away. But, the internet can and hopefully be a conduit for activism before that's taken away. Pam in Oregon Keep up the great work. Hopefully, you can reach enough American's to inspire them to do what is right for this nation to survive. Thank you!!! Posted by: D. Worley at February 7, 2009 11:13 AM | Permalink Being a big fan of all three of you and also being basically greedy, all I can say is, "More!" Interesting sidelight: Bill Moyers has come on Friday 10PM on my local PBS outlet for years and this week's schedule showed nothing different. I dutifully turned on my outlet at the appointed time to watch the show and was treated to a repeat of the PBS NOW 9:30PM broadcast. At 10:30, another repeat of NOW. I was not happy, and called the station's number, but no answer. (I wound up watching at the PBS website.) Sphere of deviance? Posted by: rollotomasi at February 7, 2009 11:15 AM | Permalink Hello Jay, Posted by: Terry Pearson at February 7, 2009 12:50 PM | Permalink Millions of Americans want desperately to influence President Obama. We need him to stand strong against the forces of the status quo in D.C.. After the discussion last night on Bill Moyer's Journal it's even more evident that we must use the power of the internet, the power of the streets, the power of our voices, to stand strong with him. He cannot do this alone; he needs us. So far all I've been doing is going to the http://www.whitehouse.gov, clicking on "Contact Us", writing emails to the "Public Liason Office" and calling the comment lines but I don't think that I'm doing enough and I feel like a lone voice in the wilderness, though I'm sure others must be writing him, too. How can we do more to really make a difference? Posted by: Ann Woods at February 7, 2009 12:55 PM | Permalink Terrific show!! Both you and Glenn were right on about Obama being a threat to the establishment but we all have to make sure he is the change agent he claims he is. He won't do it without us pushing him. We should all be happy when the establishment media reports disfavorably about what he is doing. We should force the media to report what we want them to report; write letters and make phone calls to the press. We can force them, too. We can stop watching them and stop buying their papers if they aren't reporting stories accurately. Maybe we don't have the will to demonstrate in the streets anymore which makes me sad but we can demonstrate in other ways. It's our country not the establishment's. We can make the changes happen; the election was only the first step. Posted by: Carolyn Knoll at February 7, 2009 1:03 PM | Permalink Jay! I watched Bill Moyers Journal last night and wanted to extend my thank you to all involved. I am soooo excited at the level of dialect in the conversation!!! This, I believe is what the country needs. A real informed citizenry with the power to think and question and find answers and change what isn't working through information. I have been watching in frustration for years now as the media become the problem. As you said it is not a bias one way or another but they have forgotten what their jobs are. They seem to think that access to the top people for a big "get" interview is journalism. To keep that access they have to become insiders, not the outsiders checking the facts. I have watched as politicians time and again come onto these shows and make statement that completely incorrect and do not match the facts. Yet the media lets the statement pass never questioning the basic facts in their statements because to challenge them might lead to them loosing access. To them a lack of access means they are no longer journalist because they are not on the inside. Journalist should be on the outside looking in, not on the inside looking out and analyzing who is winning the inside game. I remain pessimistic that we can change that thinking. I do not think the internet with its varied chorus of voices, good and bad, is unifying enough to provide the impetus we need. I am truly concerned where all of this will lead. A democracy needs a independent media to remain a democracy. I am not sure we have one anymore. Posted by: roger at February 7, 2009 1:18 PM | Permalink Jay, You and Glenn were terrific on the show last night, particularly in talking about the behaviorism of the press and its need to maintain the appearance of savviness in matters of politics. As a frequent reader of PressThink and Glenn's blog, it was great for me to finally hear both of you speak. Posted by: Anthony Salveggi at February 7, 2009 1:29 PM | Permalink Jay - really enjoyed the topic, the dialogue, and the assessments by you and Glenn. Not sure I heard though any suggestions as to how we can have (radical) change come to the establishment (press, politics). Still loved the discussion and points of view between the three of you. Insightful and very refreshing! Thanks, Mohamed. http://twitter.com/bizuser Posted by: Mohamed Amer at February 7, 2009 1:41 PM | Permalink As you deal with a controversial issue, there always seems to be a 600 pound gorilla in the room, nobody dares to talk about. In case of discussing the ‘media’, as many other situations, it is the fear of losing one’s job and in case of the media it means avoiding those subjects, you assume your boss does not want to be exposed. The same is true for many staff workers working for people with responsibility. Where else does the expression: “Don’t kill the messenger” comes from? Posted by: Peter Maier at February 7, 2009 1:48 PM | Permalink Jay, Just heard you on Bill's Journal this morning. I would like to be a part of the grass root of people that moved Obama forward, for I think they will be the group that moves our country forward. I am retired and cn devote some time to that effort. My background is education, not journalism, but what you and Glenn said have been my independent tinking for some time. Do you know of a local group near Chico, California with whom I could communicate? Posted by: Rick Light at February 7, 2009 1:51 PM | Permalink Great show! Posted by: Ken Friedenbach at February 7, 2009 2:08 PM | Permalink As always, after listening to Moyers on Friday nights, I feel some comfort in knowing there are smart people out there who continue to struggle to make sense of a political and economic establishment that's ruining the country. Bill's editorial short piece at the end was classic Moyers, crisp, direct, a stab straight to the heart of the establishment, mincing no words. Sadly, the hope I'd placed in Obama is fading fast. The notion of 'all form no substance' is radidly pertaining. More important then, that we hold collective feet to the fire. Why am I disappointed - Daschle is an archetype of my despair. How dare Obama appoint this man after the promises he made during the campaign, to purge the influence of insiders from the system. Then, the reactive media, afraid of its own shadow and more to the point of the show, focuses on taxes and not on the millions of dollars of vested interest Daschle has and would bring to the post. And Obama's public response to Geithner's tax problems was anemic at best...No big deal, he said, a simple mistake. The question for me over the next months will be - is Obama just another narcissistic politician or will he be able to balance his need for attention and traditional success with an idea of freedom that challenges the way most americans have been living, and certainly challenges our major political, economic and media That said, a great appearance by both you and Glenn. I'm a new fan. Posted by: bill in seattle at February 7, 2009 2:19 PM | Permalink I saw you on Bill Moyers' Journal last night and it was just about the best television I have ever seen. It soothed the increasing rage I have been feeling over the past several weeks as I have listened to the press treat as serious the Republican claims that our economic problems can be cured by tax cuts. Suddenly it was clear that there is another agenda and that we need to break through it. But suddenly I began to believe that yes, we can. Posted by: Sandra at February 7, 2009 2:39 PM | Permalink I wish everyone could have watched Bill Moyer last night. I agree 100% with your comments on this manipulatioin that the media has been doing for a number of years. I couldn't believe that PBS was actually airing your point of view, I would like to hear someone try and defend the lopsided information forced upon the public by the general media. We should hear more about 9-11 Posted by: George at February 7, 2009 2:48 PM | Permalink One of the biggest problems we have is that the press has become quite monolithic, with huge corporations controlling large segments of the media. Obama now has his man in the FCC, and a majority of FCC commissioners are Democrats. What should Obama do to change the game of corporate media ownership, and to secure net neutrality? It seems to me that this is one area that could really have long term impact on our democracy. Posted by: Ramon Creager at February 7, 2009 2:52 PM | Permalink Fantastic...thanks to you I don't feel alone, especially about the need of the media to feel "experts" about everything, to keep control. Thanks thank and I'll keep up with your comments. Posted by: MKN at February 7, 2009 2:53 PM | Permalink My husband and I very much enjoyed you two on Bill Moyer's Journal. I think the internet is the best invention in our lifetime. We no longer have to rely on the MSM for our news. There are day when I would love to see the pundits in the unemployment line but that would just further hurt our contry. Posted by: sandyboy42 at February 7, 2009 3:05 PM | Permalink I became a reader of Glenn Greenwald after seeing him with Moyers several weeks ago. After last night I will be reading your blog as well. The media is part of the DC establishment and will do whatever it can to keep the status quo. Republican, Democrat, right or left doesn't matter just don't rock the boat. We need people like you, Glenn and Bill to keep us truly informed. Thanks, and congratulations on your new 'celebrity'. Posted by: joey white at February 7, 2009 3:05 PM | Permalink Jay, I watched the Bill Moyers show last night and was thrilled to hear both you and Glen Greenwald. I am not familiar with blogging so now am determined to get involved! Thank all three of you for the excellent program. Bill Moyers has always been an absolute favorite of mine. Yes We Can! Posted by: Yvette at February 7, 2009 4:36 PM | Permalink Your appearance with Glenn Greenwald on Bill Moyers was fascinating & vindicating as one who frequently feels like one of those dirty f***ing hippies from the fringe when it comes to political press coverage, shouting at the pundits; why aren't you asking this, talking about that! The optimism of you & Glenn Greenwald that the internet can be the vehicle to change the way public discourse and debate takes place in America on political issues gives me hope. Al Gore's book, "The Assault on Reason" posits that the internet can be the conduit through which Americans reclaim...government by the people. Sure am glad Bill Moyers has big ears! Leave it to him to find the guests who think outside the box. Posted by: Linda Valley at February 7, 2009 5:03 PM | Permalink I am frustrated with the Washington elite. I am insulted that they consider me invisable. I want to get their attention and send them this message. I am here. I am listening. I know what you are about. Turn the ship around! It was eye-opening seeing Jay and Glen on B Moyers. Thanks for all you do. Posted by: Dennis Baum at February 7, 2009 5:58 PM | Permalink Enjoyed your comments on Moyers/very refreshing/have often said that the Bush Admin was full of radical extremists so was glad to hear others noticed/also am a fan of Amy Goodman and enjoyed the comments about never seeing her on Meet The Press/that'll be the day! Posted by: Sarah at February 7, 2009 7:01 PM | Permalink Paul, You should read this from 1992: The Return of the Expressed. After writing this polemic against GHW Bush, Jay blinded himself to the fact that Bill Clinton was exactly the "thin self, the extraordinary feel" politician ("I feel your pain, it's the economy stupid") Jay described. Can you hear the resonance in the comments above? Can you find the chord? Think about the fallacy in Jay's reasoning. The same institutional press that restrains powerful "liberal" radicalism, is inept when faced with powerful radicals Jay hates. Jay, thanks to you and Glenn and Bill too. A refreshing breath of fresh air in the stale vaporlock of "newshours." I really think that Obama has to reach outside the Clinton/Beltway retreads and Senate Patricians (the Senate - our House of Lords with Their Hands Out). It will be harder than the Greek who searched for one honest man, but he has to find men and women who can't be bought - by money, power or ideology. Where are the people who believe government exists for the people and by the people, and not the people with silver spoons in their mouths? One sure way to shake up the press elite is to make them interview people who are not beholden to them. Posted by: Bob K at February 7, 2009 7:53 PM | Permalink Jay, thanks to you and Glenn and Bill too. A refreshing breath of fresh air in the stale vaporlock of "newshours." I really think that Obama has to reach outside the Clinton/Beltway retreads and Senate Patricians (the Senate - our House of Lords with Their Hands Out). It will be harder than the Greek who searched for one honest man, but he has to find men and women who can't be bought - by money, power or ideology. Where are the people who believe government exists for the people and by the people, and not the people with silver spoons in their mouths? One sure way to shake up the press elite is to make them interview people who are not beholden to them. Posted by: Bob K at February 7, 2009 7:53 PM | Permalink Dear Jay, I enjoyed the program. Bill Moyers usually does not make my television screen. This program was interesting, and it points out that the mainstream media clearly is part of the political system, particularly because whether its left-leaning or right-leaning the media protrays what it wants the public to hear. Your point that the internet allows the public to give its point of view to the polictical establishment is very true and important! President Obama's actions this last week were very disappointing. His speech in Virginia was polarizing. He is missing the point of what the American public is saying about the Pork Tree spending bill that is being ram-rodded through Congress. We want a stimulus bill, but we want it to be well-thought out! We want Congress and the President to act in a bi-partisan way, but not in a rash way. Congress and this President need to think through all the dollars, particularly since they will not have an immediate effect on the economy. A week or two more of thoughtful spending plans is more important that just merely passing a pork tree bill. Whether its tax cuts or spending, the bill needs to be examined and Congress needs time to study it. Could you have imagined spending a billion dollars in thirty days two years ago? Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid do not have a mandate to ram through a bill and spend precious tax dollars in a careless manner. Thank you. Hopefully, the mainstream media will understand this point and explain it to the President and to Congress. Posted by: Kurt S at February 7, 2009 8:04 PM | Permalink You were fantastic on Bill Moyers last night -- I've re-watched the segment a couple times now and it's some of the best rhetoric that I've seen on TV, ever. I thank you for getting your voice out there and I sincerely hope Obama uses his potential for political disturbance to everyone's benefit. jay-i really thought your comment about bush and cheney being the true radicals was great. you have a new reader. john Posted by: john at February 7, 2009 9:15 PM | Permalink I spent the Bush years feeling like I was no longer living in America. Sometimes it felt like I was the only person who felt that way. I have not liked what is happening with Obama up to this point either, and I was was captivated to hear your interview and to feel less alone than I have felt in a long time. I taped a later version of the show and have watched it twice more. It does mean something to know that other people feel the same way and to think there is a possibility of an external group forcing change. Thank you. You have a new reader. Posted by: John G. at February 7, 2009 9:48 PM | Permalink I come from the Bill Moyers show and am just discovering you. As I watched I could tell you have major brilliance. Your creative force is strong. And I want to thank you for bubbling up the things I was unable to fathom before I heard your discourse. The behaviorists, the savyness, the two way internet. Floored me. And to the coment about you and Glenn not clicking together, as if some political thearter. I noticed- but one has to realize you guys are not old school chums. I was struck how the two pointed argument brought light to the liberal media myth. I have always realized the media panders to the right. And daily we hear just the opposite. NOW I see why. The conversation was nicely parleyed by Glenn talking about the partnership reached during Monica Lewinski times. The idea should be a book. After all he is a constitutional lawyer- its a deep story I am sure. Posted by: John J Ferrari at February 7, 2009 10:51 PM | Permalink After writing this polemic against GHW Bush, Jay blinded himself to the fact that Bill Clinton was exactly the "thin self, the extraordinary feel" politician ("I feel your pain, it's the economy stupid") Jay described. And "Its the economy, stupid" was about the focus of the campaign, not a message that Clinton was supposed to send -- (the first line of the sign was, wait for it... "Change vs more of the same", the final line was "don't forget health care"). The transition from substance (seling) to style (marketing) can probably be traced back to Kennedy; Nixon was definitely the more substantive candidate, but Kennedy squeaked through a victory because thanks to his huge advantage in style points. Carter represented another leap of style over substance, but (until Obama) Reagan was the absolute avatar of "marketing" -- people voted for him despite disagreeing with his position on the issues having found Carter's "style" lacking. Obama has achieved levels of marketing success that exceed even Reagan's. Clinton's campaign mantra "its the economy, stupid" (and "don't forget health care") at least implies substance, Obama's campaign mantra was virtually substance-free ("Change vs more of the same"). And while Obama eventually became more comfortable discussing substance (no more references to "check out my website" for explanations of his policy proposals) after being schooled by the master of substantive debate (Hillary Clinton), Obama remains a "style" president (calling for a stimulus package, but never offering anything other than general guidance about the size and content of that package.)
Posted by: p.lukasiak A long time reader and seldom commenter, that was a good presentation. The media as savvy keeps sticking in my mind, objectionably. I do believe that think they're smart, I do believe they think they know how things work and I believe they're wrong. They know what they are told in the corridors of power and what their bosses say and most of them know some actual facts and that is a real problem. Compliant and complicit seem a bit more accurate. As a for instance: the term 'supply side economics' is freely used. As someone who studied engineering I'm not overly impressed with some disciplines usage of the word science in regard to themselves but economists do create models and there simply is no working historical model for supply side. The models that look like what they espouse are the present dislocation of wealth and the Robber Barons and journalists are perfectly aware of that. So...by that measure what we have is a deliberate falsehood propagated for those who benefit, their employers and the powerful with that aim. I have a pretty fair handle on what works and doesn't work politically and practiaclly and my public track record of calling it is better than the media's, despite "access," but the difference is that I have nothing to gain and don't work for anyone with anything to gain or around anyone with... I have no insight into their thinking or rationals, but I do know that the lack of context and critical reporting is egregious enough that savvy is the wrong word, at a reasonable level of education and knowledge its lack cannot be due to ignorance. When most of the media accurately reported Obama's campaign tax plan was there ever a single word uttered about the modern history of top rates? How does that happen? This is nothing in depth like an analysis of how Adjusted Gross is arrived at in the top 0.1% versus 85% or the impact of total tax load as a percentage of income, it isn't the kind of thing that takes paragraphs to accomplish - one sentence covers the top tax rate 1960-2008. No time for the consumer to get bored. I don't want to pick nits about something that contained insights that kicked some thinking into gear on my part that should have already been in gear so, again, a great job. Posted by: Chuck Butcher at February 8, 2009 7:50 AM | Permalink Dear Jay, Posted by: Rose Rush at February 8, 2009 8:02 AM | Permalink Im a busy reporter (foreign corrie for major NYC media giant) and couldnt read all these comments, but one point and a comment. First the comment: Great Moyers interview. Rosen rocks. The point Id like to make is this: when are we going to dispell the myth of a center. There is no such thing. The center is a-political. It means you have no ideas. The only party that cries about the center is the Republican party, and they spent 8 years in Washington running as far right of center as any party I can remember in my 38 years of life. Lets start this debate over the center...Huffington is great at this. Posted by: KenFox at February 8, 2009 8:58 AM | Permalink Excellent interview. It's great to see you getting the exposure you deserve. Posted by: A. Sauertieg at February 8, 2009 10:23 AM | Permalink I learned little new on the program but felt a great deal of pleasure in hearing views I usually feel isolated in holding expressed with clarity and verve. Posted by: Patricia Mason at February 8, 2009 11:11 AM | Permalink Paul, The "I feel your pain" event you link occurred in March 1992, the month following the article. "I feel your pain" was not limited to the AIDS context, predates Clinton, and (I think we agree) is marketing of a candidate, not selling of a policy agenda. "It's the economy, stupid" was also a marketing theme. It resonated. The reality? Economic fears marketed (polled) well, but were not reality-based. What I'm struggling with is an old problem, as you point out. How a candidate campaigns tells us little about how that candidate will govern. Worse, the elected candidate continues to campaign (poll and market) what resonates rather than sell policy solutions. For example, it seems the current stimulus package is marketed as "necessary" rather than sold based on content. What role does journalism have in distinguishing between what is marketing and what is being sold? What obligation does civic journalism have? My understanding of Jay's definition would be to engage the public in the content of the stimulus bill, not the emotional marketing that resonates to push it through. I Am Not Optimistic But I Do Have Hope: The Future of Journalism in A Media Age (April 1993) MotherJones: I feel your pain (July/August 1993) My appreciation for you is reflected in your statement about Mr. Greenwald: "I like Glenn because he's serious about what he does." Weary of the excess, overkill, and banality of the mainstream U.S.media, I go to Mr. Moyers and the likes of you and Mr. Greenwald for intellectual relief. Thank you! Posted by: Lalitha Shastri at February 8, 2009 12:45 PM | Permalink Jay it wasn't your first time on National TV. You were on The Daily Show after all. Hi, your and Greenwald's interview was the kinda "zoom out" approach to events of the last few weeks that I needed. I couldn't help but think of Jill Nelson's critique even before Moyers mentioned that "alternative" voices like Amy Goodman's wouldn't receive an invite to a Sunday am show. Obama, like any good person, has a 50:50 shot of changing or being rolled over by Washington. His odds increase tremendously though if he cuts out the middlemen and talks straight to the people... and they keep talking to him. btw, thanks for the link to the Moyers speech. I'm a student reporter. Even at school, I wonder about classmates who see technology as the revolution, when it's just a tool. Tim... But far more interesting than our minor difference on this point is the role that the media plays -- television as a medium is more disposed to communicate "marketing" ("which candidate would you rather have a beer with?") than "sales" (all that "boring" policy stuff), and the print media now approaches the campaign from a "marketing" perspective. If Jay is reading this, I think it would be interesting if he were to update this "sales" vs "marketing" concept here in the blog, or elsewhere... Posted by: p.lukasiak Thank you, Jay! Was inspired by you and Glenn on Moyers to follow up/write letter to Pres Obama:
Posted by: Pamela Chaddock at February 8, 2009 4:05 PM | Permalink Paul, I find the idea that Clinton sold, rather than marketed, a different approach to the economy in 1992 interesting. I think all three candidates in 1992 presented a different approach to the economy and the economy was an important factor in the election. How much of that presentation was based on marketing vs. selling is an interesting question. THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: Issues -- Unanswered Questions; Bush, Clinton and Perot Demonstrate How to Let the Worst Go Unspoken I'm a longtime reader, Jay, and a follower on Twitter too. Thank you for linking the Moyers interview. Glenn was terrific and you two together were first-rate explainers of the way the Washington press corp operates--determining what will resonate with their readers (and listeners) because it resonates with them. I guess that's the closed editorial system you write about so often. Chiming in here only to buttress your point. On a news roundup this afternoon on NPR, whose audio clip on the stimulus legislation do you suppose it used to sum up? Nope, not Congressman Barney Frank, who was brilliant this morning on MTP. It was Indiana's Pence, who bloviated with precision about the bill's bailouts, pork, and spending. Because NPR decided, you think, that this clip ~resonated~ the most? How did it decide, and why? I think you and Glenn explain why. Pence's Senate colleague at the table, Nevada's Ensign, sitting next to the not very effective McCaskill, was even more masterful: he conflated the Palinesque "bridge to nowhere" business with the administration's planned infrastructure spending. Seriously. He co-opted the most notorious and Republican pork project, the Bridge to Nowhere, and said roads and bridges were the same thing--projects to nowhere. Steele hit this point too, on This Week, claiming, really, that "work is not a job." Only private sector jobs are jobs. George S. was just shy of agog. My sense is that most Americans understand, in Maddow's words, that this is bull pucky. Can Obama articulate and tap into this larger American disgust? In the meantime, I'm paying close attention to Gingrich. On Stephanopoulos this morning he said he was "concerned about the confusion in the Obama administration." They will hit this false note (Obama administration confused) again and again, without any evidence, to delegitimate a fledgling administration. Because Gingrich more nearly than anyone truly knows what resonates inside Washington--what wins news cycles. So the coming epic battle will pitch Gingrich's game (insiders) vs. Obama's game of frantic Americans who voted for a different kind of resonance. Can Obama bring his legions into a debate hitherto closed to them? Posted by: paxr55 at February 8, 2009 4:36 PM | Permalink Dear Mr. Rosen--I thought that your discussion with Bill Moyers and Glenn Greenwald was very good. It prompted me to look up your web site, which seems interesting. As the three of you were talking about the internet working both ways, I remembered the attempt by the 9/11 Truth movement to communicate with Mr. Moyers last year when he requested recommendations for books that the new president should read. A lot of 9/11 Truth people recommended the latest book by David Ray Griffin on 9/11 Truth. After many objections, Mr. Moyers stated that he didn't include the book in 'his' list because there had been an 'orchestrated effort' to communicate with him about it. Here is an e-mail that I sent to him on 22 February 2008 which remains unanswered. Are we sure that the internet works both ways? Dear Mr. Moyers, I respect you tremendously as an open-minded, courageous, thoughtful, and compassionate man. When you decided to return to news commentary a couple of years ago, I was delighted because I believe that your voice is invaluable at this time. I didn't take part in your request for recommendations for books for a future president to read, but would have suggested David Ray Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor. I read it after seeing Professor Griffin's interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now. His meticulous research and analysis of the 9/11 question convinced me beyond a doubt that the true story is far different than we have heard from the media and our government. I was especially impressed, as an academic librarian for 30 years, that, like the scholar that he is, Professor Griffin did not jump to conclusions about the contradictions in the available evidence, but simply and carefully described the issues that need to be resolved. If his more recent book, Debunking 9/11 Debunking, was the object of an 'orchestrated campaign' to be named on the Journal, that is because there are many people like me who feel dismay and despair at the fact that these questions have been asked for years and have met with only indifference or ridicule in the press. No doubt those who suggested the book to you believed that you were one of the journalists who would pay attention. I implore you to talk with David Ray Griffin. As you probably know, he is a theologian, retired from Claremont College. If you talk with him personally and, even better, read The New Pearl Harbor (Olive Branch Press, 2004) I believe that you will think that his views are well reasoned and well presented and that they deserve serious consideration. The best outcome would be an interview with Professor Griffin on the Journal. If, as some other writers on the Journal blog suggest, you are 'not allowed' to address the issue, I hope that you will consider the implications of that situation. So I'd like to challenge you to look into this issue more deeply. Thank you so much. Respectfully, Karen Rice Posted by: Karen Rice at February 8, 2009 5:19 PM | Permalink I watched the Bill Moyers Show today and found your concept of the media's comfort zone with the status quo thought provoking. It helps explain my distress with media coverage throughout the Bush Administration and why TV news coverage has been so exasperating since Obama was elected. Please write more on this idea. Posted by: Joanne Gareau at February 8, 2009 5:27 PM | Permalink I'm embarrassed to admit that I recognized your name, but I have not read your blog. I will now. Watching you and Greenwald was like letting out a breath I didn't even know I was holding in. I don't know how else to explain it. Posted by: politickybitch Mr. Rosen It is obvious your discourse today resonated with thousands of viewers. I hope that you continue to challenge journalists to act like journalists, and move beyond the same old, tired narratives. Puneet S. Kohli Posted by: Puneet Kohli at February 8, 2009 6:25 PM | Permalink well i'm prob way down you list of replies but i thought it was groundbreaking - which on one level i unfortunate because there is so little commentary that rises to this level. but it also went right to the heart of what has been disturbing me - in obama's first 17 days. but the big view of the media and the establishment. they really think they can drag him down and make them politic like the others. lets' nope they are wrong. mk Posted by: mitchell kriegman at February 8, 2009 8:10 PM | Permalink Thanks Jay for sharing your views along with Glen and Bill. I wish you guys were on more often. I wish all of you and other prominent journalist would get together and have a simposium and talk about these greater truths at great length and in ways the average person can understand. I look forward you reading your site. Posted by: George C. at February 8, 2009 8:34 PM | Permalink Jay, Posted by: George Zulch at February 8, 2009 11:01 PM | Permalink Thanks, everyone, for your responses, and just for watching what, after all, is three talking heads. I was very pleased with the program, which was superbly edited by Moyers staff. I am very grateful for the words of those from the TV audience who were moved to seek out PressThink and tell me themselves what they thought when the discussion aired. Thank you. Paul: Glenn's a more ideological critic than I am and that's appropriate because he is writing about political policies and their construction in the news media, whereas I am a politically-inflected press critic. We come from different places to similar conclusions. There were several points he made that I wouldn't put the way he put them, or I might say, "no, that's not the reason." In general, I emphasize more institutional factors than he does. I am also more likely to credit the story journalists tell themselves as "true to them," whereas for Glenn it is mostly untrue, even to them. But we are often struck by the same patterns, so that is why we can have a decent conversation. Tim and Paul: I don't have a rapid update to my 1993 piece; that was the way I thought 15 years ago. I may not even find it valid when I sit down and re-read it, which I have not done in many years. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 8, 2009 11:23 PM | Permalink Jay, Very enlightening. Just this AM, I was watching Meet the Press and was wondering: "Why bother? It's the same rhetoric that we've been hearing forever." Keep up the enlightenment. We pawns need it - badly, Kindest regards, Ken Leebow Posted by: Ken Leebow at February 9, 2009 9:38 AM | Permalink Jay: I turned on Moyers accidentally and was rewarded (like always) for my time. You and Gleen said what those on the left doing media criticism have been saying for years. thank you -- a breath of fresh air whenever it does slip into mainstream media. Yes, you got on national TV, but only with that old radical, Bill Moyers, who is also treated as suspect and unserious. Somehow it's different now with the Internet. Is that true? Also, street demonstrations seem so outmoded (I mean, actually going somewhere physically intead of virtually?) and quaint, but that is the only thing that is going to keep BHO honest about change that we elected him to do. Along the lines of the anti-Iraq war demonstrations before we went in - a broad mix of all folks, not just the crazy leftie typical suspects. Jay, you're now on my Favorites -- Glenn, too. Thank you very much for your work. Posted by: Leigh Coop at February 9, 2009 1:44 PM | Permalink So what do we do actively to say , ENOUGH ? !! When Obama said it, during the campaign, my spirit lifted because it is so true. Now the press chips away and fosters fear and negatively undermines just about everything. I'm sure someone is trying to dig up some dirt on Sully an his crew at this very moment. I ask, with a true genuine wish to be guided, how do we get together and stop this now ? Demonstrate where ? When ? What is the most effective way to raise voices. We got him elected. That was big. Now what ? Posted by: martine Byer at February 9, 2009 2:29 PM | Permalink I agree with the comments you made on Bill Moyers Journal. It seems to me that another reason that journalists continue to repeat the spoon fed party line is that most journalists don't have the background, either academic or street smarts to provide analysis on their own. You can see the disgust or frustration on Obama's face when asked questions by TV journalists. The questions reflect absolutely no insight into the subjects at all on the part of the journalist. When Obama gave the speech in Williamsburg to the Democratic House caucus he made what I thought was a pejorative reference about the cable news media by calling their reporting "cable chatter". Not one of the media caught the reference. I think Obama knows all about the media and good things will come of it. Posted by: Tom Webb at February 9, 2009 5:47 PM | Permalink one does hope that all these commenters praising Jay are taking advantage of the opportunity to read his other posts (check out the "highlights" in the right hand column) in order to gain an understanding of where jay is really coming from. Jay has a lot more to say that is worthwhile, and isn't worth reading because he expressed opinions consistent with the agenda of Moyers' audience; he's worth reading because he's smart and is able to articulate his vision of the way that media functions and relates (and fails to function and relate) to the rest of society. Posted by: p.lukasiak Mr. Rosen, Congratulations to you and Mr. Greenwald for delivering a devastating critical salvo against a political media culture which currently determines the limits of 'acceptable' ideas for public consumption. Posted by: WMK at February 10, 2009 4:15 PM | Permalink As an original fan of Bill Moyers from his origins I can agree this was one of his finest shows, congratulations to all. However, even this is just skimming the surface -- the real concern, even if we had more control over process and information, is what is our desired outcome? If we had the power, what do we want to happen? Here is where sparks fly and dialectic begins. For example, income distribution: with the top 2% owning half the wealth, the solution is obvious but no-one dares speak about it. We need to confiscate and redistribute the loot. Posted by: Dennis C. at February 10, 2009 4:36 PM | Permalink Jay, It boils down to this, an "expert" in any field, is simply a person with a vested interest in the status quo. So if you want to solve a problem enlist the people with a vested interest in solving the problem. Posted by: Aleta at February 10, 2009 5:48 PM | Permalink I wonder if the Salon podcast served as a sort of audition tape. Really enjoyed the segment. I never rarely miss Moyers. Mr. Rosen stopped short of saying that it is corporate power/control that keeps the media from exposing that very power. I suppose even on PBS it is too disruptive to the power structure to really name it for what it is. Corporate power has completely invaded our democratic institutions (media, schools, legislatures) and we are nothing but cogs in their machine. Posted by: kelley hewitt at February 10, 2009 6:56 PM | Permalink thank you jay and glenn for your air time with bill moyers. bill has become an american treasure along with the last honest man in our capitol, ralph nader (where do you see or hear from ralph?).. couldn't help notice that bill's speech you referenced was from 2003- six long frightening years. the inexorable march of money and power continues. journalists may want to start any search for facts and truth with this: "please just tell me what you won't or can't, i really don't need the rest". political leadership in our capitol enters more and more into the realm of theater reminding one of roman circus, joined by mainstream media. Posted by: tb at February 10, 2009 9:48 PM | Permalink Hah! It was your Virtually Speaking appearances that put you over the top. I say. Will Bunch this week. Posted by: jayackroyd at February 11, 2009 8:33 AM | Permalink It's curious that many commenters mention being in Oregon, as I am. I relayed this thread link to Thom Hartmann's peeps, (based in Portland), adding a sticky note that 'they' (same old ratings-rabid, corporate-sponsored, wool-gathering radio ... in 'progressive' guise), are borderline extinct in their lapdog yapping. Congrats on your 23-year breakthrough, Jay. I wish they'd have let you in earlier, when it still mattered and made a difference. Seems to me, like another Oregonian at heart -- Mike Ruppert, Crossing the Rubicon: author, 'FromTheWilderness.COM' webmaster -- that the global kill-off/die-off is too far along to prevent, as connived through mass media by the controllers who grabbed hold of it first, (the mil.-indus.-media-political complex, c. 1952), and despite all your excellent analyses and Moyers' masterwork productions, yet the so-called 'Free Press' sealed the demise into debacle of itself and humankind relying on it, the final time when it went stooge-stupid for Bush, especially maintaining the Myth of Nine-Eleven from which all calamity comes. Truth coulda been a contend'ah ... except its mainstream media agent wasn't. Posted by: meremark at February 12, 2009 1:23 AM | Permalink I'm a regular Moyers viewer, and was delighted to see you and Glenn as his guests. Since I've enjoyed your writing, it was fun to connect a face and presence to that. I was dismayed with the frequency and ease with which you both accused "them" as the root of all problems, however. It seems a little too easy, and too much a caricature, and tends to reduce the depth of the analysis possible. Posted by: fortboise at February 12, 2009 11:33 PM | Permalink I don't recall doing that, actually. I do recall saying that if Washington's cycles are going to change it would only be because of pressure from the outside. But that's not a "them." I didn't say or imply that "they" are the cause of all our problems. I said electing the right people is not enough. So I don't think yours is a fair reading of my portions in the transcript. Posted by: Jay Rosen at February 12, 2009 11:40 PM | Permalink Jay, How can we let Obama know that he really has the power to mobilize the anger of the American people and make real change come to Washington? He needs to speak directly to us and not let the pundits "interpret" for us. Too many people are deceived by the media. I am angry and frustrated. Almost everyone I know feels the same way. We didn't just vote for change for the heck of it. We actually WANT change. Big Change with a capitol C.I want Washington turned upside down. How else can we regain our democracy? Who can we contact. How can we join forces and be heard? I am not articulate. I don't have the words to express what I would like Obama to do. I need someone who can put the concepts together. When I hear you and Glenn and others on Bill Moyers I feel like you guys have the ability to speak what I think and feel, even if I don't have the words. If Washington has all the connections and power of the lobbyists behind them, they won't want real change. How do we work toward changing the unwilling? What can I do? Posted by: Rochelle Day at February 13, 2009 11:18 AM | Permalink Jay, Posted by: Graham Smith at February 15, 2009 8:28 AM | Permalink My two cents: I stated my point too strongly with "root of all problems," but re-reading the transcript affirms the basis for my impression of a good deal of generalized criticism. There were a lot of broad shots taken at "the press" as a whole. The established media share a lot of traits to be sure, but the individuals and the individual organizations vary widely in their skills and faults. Maybe an important boundary is between occupation and industry: if your job is reporting, the measures of success are different than if your business is selling advertising. The news on PBS and Democracy Now is categorically different from the news on ABC, CNN, and so on. Posted by: fortboise at February 15, 2009 6:15 PM | Permalink One big point made on Moyers is the way that views not remotely congruent to the left-right ideological spectrum (eg views about integrity, legality, war making, climate change) get labelled 'liberal' or 'leftist'. It has to be every sane American's fundamental duty to call foul whenever this happens. Posted by: AlanDownunder at February 16, 2009 4:04 AM | Permalink Thank you! You have elucidated succinctly what so many Americans have felt but could not define. It is a breath of freah air. I trust you understand that it is almost impossible for the common American see through the network media shroud or even conceive that the media or the government does not operate in their best interests. Posted by: Bernard J. Stankay at February 16, 2009 5:14 AM | Permalink There is an axiom out there ready to be born that everything takes 20 years, though your day was a bit overdue even by that standard. Glad PBS and the Internets carried your message. Posted by: leolabeth at February 16, 2009 7:05 AM | Permalink Congrats on the exposure, Jay, and you do raise some good points. But a Bill Moyers/Jay Rosen/Glen Greenwald lineup? That's a circle jerk of liberal orthodoxy. The fact that PBS thought it would be compelling TV to bring the three of you in for a discussion is symptomatic of the real ailment affecting journalism... and the fact that the three of you guys could sit in front of a camera and claim that the press was relentlessly pro-Bush - despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary - and PBS didn't see fit to book a single soul who could raise a counterargument - is itself worthy of a laugh. Perhaps it would have been more efficient to just book a couple of Greenwald's sock puppets to agree with him. Not your fault, Jay, but this show was a joke. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at February 16, 2009 10:10 AM | Permalink Excellent discussion viewed via podcast. The media are truly whores and principally beholden to corporate interests. Amy Goodman represents the best of journalism these days. I wish she had a voice in primetime to counter Posted by: kicking bear at February 17, 2009 6:17 PM | Permalink Dear Jay, Posted by: Roxanne Cordonier at February 18, 2009 9:51 AM | Permalink Jay, Posted by: Gregg at February 26, 2009 7:53 PM | Permalink |
|
Print![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://archive.pressthink.org/nav-commenters.gif)
