Nia-Malika Henderson of the Politico has written… well, not really a story so much as a bit of Drudgeish linkbait discussing whether First Lady Michelle Obama is doing too much.
Now, of course, Mrs. Obama is doing the thing First Ladies have done from time immemorial, drawing vital media and public attention to issues they think need to be highlighted. Laura Bush did it, Hillary Clinton did it, Barbara Bush did it, etc.
There’s really nothing new here. But I guess Henderson has her Politico b.s. quota to fill so she’s got to write a story (always critical of the Obamas, as the Politico does) to whip up questions that nobody besides congressional bobos like Darrel Issa are asking.
People like Nia-Malika Henderson make me cheer for the oncoming death of the mainstream media to happen in double time.
Don’t you love the nonsensical concerted republican efforts?
One week it was Obama’s office wear.
One week it was Michelle’s arms.
One week he’s doing too much.
One week–STEM CELLS!!–he’s not doing enough.
One week he’s so liberal he’s a fascist, communist, vegetarian, anarchist.
The next week he’s not liberal enough for the liberals and they are all turning against him.
One week it’s TelePrompTers.
This week–protecting the friggin’ “Historic office of the First Lady”
I so want them to keep up the stupidity and unhelpful idiocy.
What am I saying?–it’s not like they can help themselves.
The saddest part of listening to someone cheer on “the oncoming death of the mainstream media” is that once credible newspapers are gone, all that may be left is Politic.com.
Still, speaking as one of the few Luddite Defenders of Newspapers, the one thing that was appreciated about Politic.com when it came online is that it sucked some of the poison out of more credible news institutions.
It was odd that so few people realized that Politico.com was set up as a loss leader by a wealthy Republican heir specifically to write damaging articles on Dems. The Villagers immediately bowed to it because it had the veneer of credibility because the poisonous “journalists” were drawn from credible news organizations. It was “success by association.”
Few pointed out that those “journalists” were the worst of the worst of those institutions. Politico.com managed to suck many of those awful “reporters” out of better newspapers like snake venom poison from a wound. What was astonishing is that all that toxicity in one place didn’t send a clear signal that those that granted them credibility were bringing their own credibility into question.
If there is “success by association,” then by the same transitive property, ass ociating with Drudge-baiting linktrollers with barely as much credibility as the National Enquirer should work the same way.
For instance, PBS’s Gwen Ifill has an awful affinity for Politic.com “journalists.” Perhaps that shouldn’t be such a surprise, Gwen Ifill has been selling Republican insurance (AARP) on her Washington Week show for so long that at some point the money trumped her journalistic ethics.
But one of the sleaziest moments during the Democratic Presidential primaries was listening to Gwen Ifill regurgitate all of the most manipulative Republican talking points about John Edwards whose outspoken populism terrified the right wing more than any other Democratic candidate except for Kucinich. Ifill wraped up all the Republican talking points, tied them with a ribbon and then handed those Republican talking points like a gift to the Republican operative masquearding as a “journalist” for Politico.com, Roger Simon, for his “analysis.”
It was the sleaziest thing that any PBS NewsHour reporter had ever done. Even watching NewsHour reporter Judy Woodruff repeatedly turn to two Republicans to get “both sides” of the story was never as sleazy.
Ifill’s Republican talking point pushing interview with Roger Simon was in July 2007 but Glenn Greenwald had Politico.com pegged even earlier. And Media Matters did a smart analysis of the Politico.com/right-wing-Drudge connection.
It’s also noteworthy in retrospect that early in 2007 Politico.com actually invented the Republican talking point of “Slow Bleed” that was repeatedly used against Democratic leaders.
Glenn Greenwald’s March 22, 2007 article: “The Politico: Gossip rag masquerading as news organization?” (It’s the article that was meant to be linked to above, oops.)
Media Matters rigorously follows Politico.com’s swill.
You mean the same “credible newspapers” who print the same nonsense as the Politico? It’s not the medium. It’s the mindset.
the Branch Drudgeians doing what they do best
People are turning off the MSM or switching channels in record numbers, they are not listening. They know they’ve been played and are still being played by millionaire pundits and news talkers.
In essence, they’re just talking amoung themselves.
Obama knows this, that’s why he’s taking it straight to the people.
The real news now on TV comes from Letterman, Stewart and Colbert.
Oliver Willis: “You mean the same ‘credible newspapers’ who print the same nonsense as the Politico? It’s not the medium. It’s the mindset.”
Newspapers wouldn’t be dying if they did their damn job and report the news, rather than reprint talking points.
Now that would make too much sense
Leota got it on the first try: they can’t help themselves. They even have to do “process” stories on the First Lady digging a vegetable garden.
Just like OW’s complaint about Newsweek’s Krugman story, there’s not an atom of substance about the events Ms. Obama attended–only commentary from watchers discussing whether they were too few, too many, or of the right sort.
The Republic is dying, and our press corps will hasten the day of our final demise.
Babs cared about something?!?
news to me…
I don’t think we need argue about the failing newspaper version of MSM reporting. My concern is who will step in and fulfill the need to keep an eye on the local school boards, courts, police, town councils etc if we lose newspapers. Oliver are you and your fellow bloggers ready to take on that responsibility? And if you are, how many in the public will ever see what you write?
My concern is who will step in and fulfill the need to keep an eye on the local school boards, courts, police, town councils etc if we lose newspapers.
This is always brought up.
1. Are newspapers doing this right now?
2. Is anyone paying attention when they do?
Maybe I’m cynical but I’m doubtful on both fronts. I also reject the idea that bloggers are responsible somehow for picking up the news slack. The MSM has wounded themselves. Blogs and the blogosphere would exist even if the MSM had been doing their jobs for all this time.
They are in my area. The Raleigh N&O even publishes a separate weekly oriented just to my section of the county and it is free to both subscribers and non-subscribers. I am not knocking blogs because obviously I am computer literate, but most of my senior citizen friends and neighbors are not. They would be lost without the newspaper.
Babs cared about something?!?
Now, Dave, be nice. Literacy was her thing. Insert joke about “My Pet Goat” here if you must. But Ms. Bush, a former librarian did good work promoting reading and literacy.
And helping Neil get that sweet, sweet children’s book publishing contract.