Like I said... 95% happy with the way it was handled. But, as I learned from my former, commie-lib (his terms), former CSM war correspondant, co-worker --- a great vocab with selective quotes, set in a writting tone that steers the reader's attitude before a quote is even added can do wonders to proprel the reader toward the reporter's agenda.

The real skill in a journalist isn't in making pretty sentances - it's in eleciting an emotional/attitudinal shift in the reader. A third grader can write a clear and concise report. A talented journalist can report on the same event, and lead a reader on an emotional journey that colors the reader's perception of the event.

Did this reporter do that... welllllllll .... maybe. There was a tonal shift in Rush's story over the one's I've seen on Jay Leno's motorcycle collection... how Leno lives on his stand up money and banks the tonight show dollars - it was obvious that Rush's wealth was because of POLITICS!

Just a subtle feeling I got.



Yep... professional courtesy for O'Reilly was out the window. Rush has learned many times over that there is no such thing as "off the record" in the national press. Pity that the reporter kept trying to get the dirt out on Hannity.



I agree to the point that the web presence for NYT and Fox are both online. But their primary delivery method still dictates the style of reporting- 30 second reports vs 30 to 50 colum inches. Plus the TV based networks are trying to broadcast first. The only way the NYT can keep up with the TV networks is to use the website, which doesn't have the immediacy of the boob tube.

What I find interesting about your criticism of Fox, eg: "Baby Mama" and "Terrorist Fist Pump" is not that these are centerpieces to stories... I've discussed the "terrorist fist" above, and the Baby Mama was a screen graphic across the bottom of the screen during an interview. It was probably put up there by some white cracker who, like me, had not a clue that it had any meaning beyond "mother of his child". I'd never heard of the term until that story broke.

Neither of these were built into news stories. The terrorist fist jab was probably a quote of what others on the web were referring to the action as -- but ED Hill didn't wiggle her fingers to make "air quotes" as she said it. So, it gets blown into a major jab at the Senator's fist action.

The baby mama thing was just plain stupidity. Some dumb shit was being either mean spirited, or just ignorant, and tried to make it funny without realizing the other connotation. Again... I sure didn't know the meaning until this came up.

But, to contrast, let's consider a similar jab by the NYT:

Take a look at the story about McCain and the lobbyist...

First ran in the NYT on Feb 21, 08. Not a hit piece per se, but the Times is getting the idea out that there might have been something going on. They just don't say it directly. Just an innocent old story about how aides were worried about McCain would be portrayed around the issue, since he also wrote an "unusually blunt" letter to the FCC in a matter that was important to the supposed almost-fling, Vicki Iseman, since the FCC was considering closing a loophole that was was of interest to one of Ms Iseman's clients.

It's not about the "sex" (or lack there of), says the Times... but it sure came across that the Times was trying to get the idea out that the Upstanding and Always Moral Republican nominee might be cheating on his wife with a pretty lobbiest. But the Times didn't say that. They simply wrote a story about how McCain's staff was worried about how it would look, and the campaign staff had been worried that he might have been having an afair. Why would they write a story like that?

What the story served to do, was take the focus off what McCain was campaigning with, and put the focus on what he had to react to: Two different items:
- the possibility (but the Times didn't say it - they just attributed it as a possiblity considered by his staff) that he was having an affair, and
- he wrote a letter to the FCC about an issue dear to the girl he might be having an afair with...

Carefully crafted stories that don't disuade the reader from feeling that he and Ms Iseman were up to hanky panky -- hanky panky is only allowed on the Democrat side, you know -- and are strategically timed to get the candidate off stride aren't dirty politics. Such is what journalism is all about.

The story in the times came out about one week after McCain had secured the nomination (well after Romney's endorsement, which basically ended the Republican race). My guess is that it was meant as a warning shot across his bow. Just letting him know that he wasn't just running against Hillary or Obama. By securing the nomination early, McCain had a slight advantage over his two dem rivals. They had to keep fighting each other, and McCain could stand back and snipe off a few extra shots. The NYT story was a "doubt creator" at just the right time to cast a negative light on him, while the dem candidates kept slugging each other.

I especially like this NYT opinion piece three days later says about the NYT McCain article. It's still dodge and cover on their part. But they admitted the story wasn't the best. Kudos to them. Too bad it was CYA on their part after they got called on it.

Again... most political news stories are written with agendas behind them. No reporter on either side is immune. Where the TV networks get the agenda out is via the commentators - since their news bites are only about 30 seconds long. Print media have the advantage of 30+ colum inches per story to steer the reader with.

The two Fox examples you site: one was a stupid misinterpretation on the liberals part - and Fox over reacted and cancelled Hill's show. The other one - I'm giving Obama the benefit of the doubt -- should have resulted in a firing, but was not part and parcel of a news story - just a dumb producer or intern at the board. I guess O'Reilly hadn't gotten to that intern yet.

The "baby mama" reference usually implies that the "mama" in question is an unwed mother. Because you haven't married the woman, she is essentially "the mother of your child" or "baby's mama" or...colloquially, your "baby mama"...it infers welfare queen invokes all sorts of ugly stereotypes and in this cae a pretty ugly misrepresentation of a presidential candidate.

I am still a little stuck on your explanation of the "terrorist fist jab" thing. What could that have meant other than to slip in an inference to terrorism and Obama where it had no place. It was a very badly botched attempt at humor directed at Obama for his hyuk hyuk redneck opposition (and you KNOW who I am talking about, so don't claim bias on this...) and if it were defensible, the I don't think FOX would have fired her. Not many people are defending it and I am uncertain why you would.



Doh

Oh and he went after the Hannity thing to highlight Limbaugh's hyper competitiveness. He hung up the phone on that and had to know that the reporter would quote his last words. Rush is incredibly media savvy. He handed that issue to the reporter on a platter. This guy controls his image aggressively. I think it was a calculated response meant to avoid the question, show how tough he was and be done with the questions. He is a busy guy!

Again, looking at the youtube source, not the original on air broadcast, I'm surmising here:

Looks like there was a tease that included ED Hill talking about an upcoming segment and repeated several different quotes about what folks were call his fist-thingie motion pumperoni!

But, being a 15 second tease -- and here's where I'm surmising -- before a commercial break, she just repeated what others online (that wonderful blog-o-sphere) were saying about it to set up the next segment with the body language chick. ED just didn't do the Dr. Evil Air Quotes gesture thingie to let everyone know those were quotations.

IIRC, I read a report that others online were referencing the fist jab as the Terrorist Fist Pump, and she was using it as a tease to set up her segment with the body language expert.

"...the gesture everyone seems to interpret differently"

is the rest of the sentance right after "Terrorist fist jab..."

Then cut to (possible commercial, then to...) a segment with the body language expert talking about what the Obama's were communicating through their body language. Terrorist wasn't really mentioned again, if I recall correctly. And, frankly, I'm too tired after the 2 hour drive there, wedding, and 2 hour drive home to look it up and watch it right now.

This is really one the left has blown out of proportion.

I now understand the meaning of"Baby Mama" and agree that the text should not have been displayed on Fox. A producer or intern needs their ass chewed and some time off work for that one.

See, I am a little concerned about "but people said it online" as the benchmark for journalistic integrity. Unfortunately, mainstream America had yet to pick up on this little gem until Fox News brought it to light. In those circumstances, with a Presidential election in the sway, with a candidate whose patriotic bonafides are being held in question by the uninformed Right and with rumors of Obama's radical, Muslim terrorist background being spread, it really becomes the responsibility of whomever is writing this to decide what makes it on the air. This was a partisan attack. It was a really low way of bring up "something people are talking about online" as a vehicle for further misinformation.

My two major concerns with Fox are 1) their seeming unwillingness to vet their stories, especially when those stories are detrimental to the political aspirations of Democrats and 2) the seeming willingness to pass along innuendos and misinformation about Democratic politicians in the guise of talking about what is going on in the blogosphere.

We MUST set a higher standard for our journalists and news sources. Again, bias is one thing, but sloppy, aggressive, lowbrow bias is another entirely. Ummm...issues anyone? policy debates? REAL policy debates? Can we kill the character assasination for a few minutes?

I've watched the video in context several times, Troy and I still see no justification for her inclusion of "terrorist fist jab" other than to take a swap at Obama's nuts. Uncool man...very uncool.

There is a diferentiation that needs to made between Hard news and the commentary/analysis that the cable networks are running non-stop to fill in time.



Watch this clip of Chris Matthews... it puts my upcoming comments into context of what is/has changed on the Cable dissection of news. I personally think Matthews is full of Liberal BS, but the first 90 seconds of his "apology" really covers what these talking heads are thinking as they put their segments together.

Not in the same veign... but watch the first 15 seconds of this MSNBC clip... the talking head is covering a Chris Matthews piece, and to illustrate her point about people covering for Bush, she mispronounces several words -- as a digg at the President's vocal mis pronouncements. Not nice... not journalistic.

Those two links are not tit-for-tat "they screw up too" links. I'm highlighting them as an illustration of how the media on TV is going outside of hard news, and is softening the rules on what they need to do as they bring forth analysis and commentary.

E.D. Hill's "tease" of the segment wasn't meant as a character assassination, nor as aggressive low brow bias... it was a merely a lead-in list of what others were saying about the fist gesture for a "soft" news analysis piece.

If the headline of Shep Smith's News hour at 7 p.m. had used the term you dislike, then I'd agree with you, IF he had not provided the necessary attribution, and placed the comment in context to the news being reported. But E.D.'s piece isn't hard news, and was following different rules -- just as the talking head pieces I linked above.

An example of character assassination would be the calls of "dumb frat boy" about GWB. Or making fun of his speech patterns and mis pronouncements. The left wing media is running with any digg they can find on GWB, but one cannot even mention what others are saying about the new dem messiah.

Back to changes in "journalism". The rules are different once these talking heads enter into the "discussion". You're still trying to apply hard news rules to the commentary, analysis, and feature sections of the 24 hour, gotta fill the air time somehow programs that the tv networks are running.

Here's a quote from the NYT Blog piece talking about the ED Hill issue: (emphasis mine)



Opinions are entering into supposed journalistic non-biased reporting all the time now.

Anticipating your reaction: I'm not equating "dorkathon" with "Terrorist Fist Jab".

But step back for a moment. In print journalism, there are two types of coverage: Hard news and Commentary (there are actually more types, but we're talking politics here).

TV journalism has the same types, but a different format. TV allows a conversation to occur real time, while print/web provides the opportunity for editing and other influences. You don't get real time discussion in print, like you do on TV.

Now... Watch Sheppard Smith's Fox new talking head show at 7 p.m. Eastern -- It's an expanded, hour long version of news report. A bit of commentary is included -- but that hour is JOURNALISM in hard news format.

Now... ED Hill, O'Reilly, and all the other shows throughout the day are more like Good Morning America or the Today show... Hard news at the top of the hour, and feature or commentary "discussions". The NYT is using their Political blog in a similar fashion -- a way to get move outside of hard news, and create a "discussion" style of coverage.

The "rules" in that vein are different for these types of shows. Just like the NYT political quote above uses "dorkathon" but I doubt you would find a reporter giving that opinion in a regular news story.

Had ED been reporting in a "hard news" fashion, then attributing the source of the quote would have been appropriate... and probably would have been followed by a quote from one political side or the other condemning such a label.

I read through the original Media Matters piece on it. If they've got their transcript correct, you can see that "terrorist" never gets used again in the body language segment -- and they even get into discussing GWB's Chest Bump with a military academy graduate.

So, IMO: you're still trying to apply hard journalism rules to area's that are not hard news. In the information Glut of the journalistic world, we need to pay a lot more attention to hard news vs. discussion/feature/commentary.

Also, please understand that the different media types - print - web - magazine - Broadcast TV - 24 hour Cable TV will all have different methods and presentations for their feature/commentary/opinion/discussion.

For example... the Huffington Post will follow different methods and have different discussions than Matt Drudge will have -- they're different media types, even though they're both web based. And they'll both deliver news in an entirely different light/methodology than the Washington Times.

Another case in point... the feature story on Rush Limbaugh last week. If that had been hard news, the reporter would have been ethically bound to go interview Al Franken or one of his contemporaries to counter-point the issues Rush talked about. But it wasn't hard news, just as ED Hill's piece wasn't hard news. So, if some blogs are reporting the gesture as a "Terrorist Fist Jab" and the Fox network knows who it's audience is, it makes sense (whether you like it or not) to bring up what some folks in their audience are saying about it.

Again, the Anchor didn't promote that as her opinion. She used it once as an illustration, and this was not hard news... it was analysis of the action with a body language. It was not a politically motivated digg at the candidate, no matter what the left wants to think! (The original use on whatever blog WAS a digg, but E.D.'s use was not -- it's merely the left trying to rail against the Fox biases).

We're going to have to disagree on this. Journalistic rules are evolving as the cable networks expand with most of their programming moving into the analysis and commentary 20 hours out of every day. The left and right are going to cry foul often as the new rules for the expanded media are developed.

PS: for some reason spell check isn't working on my initial posts... please forgive any typos!

Using sarcasm to criticize Bush’s lack of vocabulary or his abysmal public speaking and even tying that to his equally befuddled policies in the last eight years is not a stretch. Using “soft news” as a cover to promote completely false assertions that Barack Obama is either muslim, terrorist or whatever is just irresponsible.

These opinion pieces are still responsible to trade in facts. What this woman was forwarding was the furthering of a smear. It wasn’t set up well, it was delivered with cynical glee and she never took the time to address the reference afterward, which is the most irresponsible thing. She should have said, “And there are people who are calling this fist bump a “terrorist fist jab” as I mentioned in the opening. Of course, we know that Obama is neither a terrorist, nor Muslim, but does this sort of gesture leave him open to misunderstanding or judgment of this sort?” She provided no context for it whatsoever. It was just irresponsible and damaging. That’s why she was fired.



It’s hard for me to accept that given how almost EVERY time I turn on Fox News there are people repeating these stupid assertions as many times as possible. It’s pandering of the lowest order. Hell, because of Fox News, a third of this country still thinks Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11.

Most people don’t know where the hard news ends and the soft news begins on Fox.




I am sorry, Troy, but he has behaved like a dumb frat boy quite often during his presidency. That’s not character assassination, it’s parody and sarcasm. I can take my impression of a guy as an incompetent boob and blow it up. But to further this completely false and damaging assertion that Obama is a Muslim? Not even in the same league. Presidents have been called boobs for time immemorial. It’s national sport. But questioning a presidential candidate’s patriotism or military service? That’s all Republicans and ALL Fox News in terms of major news outlets.



So what standards DO we set? How do we hold these people accountable?



But…TROY! She NEVER referred to it again! She provided no context or source or even a WINK to let us know that it was in jest. You are certainly giving her the benefit of the doubt, but you completely deny that this was in ANY way irresponsible? The woman knew she was playing with fire a little and when you do that, you have to make sure to contain it a little. She chose not to contextualize her potential inflammatory remarks and I am really glad she lost her job. There are limits even for talking head news shows.

Oh and don’t worry about the spelling stuff. I won’t call you a dumb frat boy.

But Chris Matthews and his buddies can make fun of republicans all day. That's still journalism?

I'm sorry, Ryan, but you're blowing off the actions of one side and having a snit over the other side.

It's OK for the lib commentators, pundits, and guests to cast aspersions on any Republican... but Fox news is biased and ignoring the rules of journalism for having guests and commentators that make similar statements?

You're making a mountain out of a mole hill.

BTW: just saw the bit on the New Yorker cover on the TV while at lunch.

Since the New Yorker is a noted liberal rag (endorsement of John F Kerry - who served in Vietnam - in 2004).

I don't have enough info yet to make a judgment. What are your thoughts?

Well, clearly FoxNews thought it was a mountain too. Otherwise, they wouldn't have fired the daffy twit. If they thought there was an iota of support for her, they wouldn't have done so. It's sort of moot I guess. I won't sgree to disagree. I absolutely reserve the right to continue to call you a lunatic at my leisure. *doh!*


Just tasteless. It's supposed to parody the collective slime peddling that has gone on to try and undermine his candidacy but just ended up bringing those stereotypes back into the fray. Who knows? It might just force a national discussion on the issues. I know it's confusing the hell out of a lot of conservatives and liberals alike. Bottom line: I bet it'll be the best-selling issue in New Yorker's history and I just hope it doesn't encourage more in the future. Their covers are usually pretty tame and apolitical.

Media matters reported that Fox execs said her show was already slated to be replaced, and E.D. Hill is still with Fox - just not on the air right now. No Fire.

I think we're both looney!




Similar thoughts here. I haven't read the article yet, but my initial response was that they were A) trying to keep the discussion on the issue alive, and B) trying to sell magazines.

Suuuuuuuuuuuure! It's like sending a diplomat to Iceland...because their service is valued.


You know, I am actually changing my tune on this. After watching the pundits starve on scraps of troop reductions, mortgage lender crises and Brangelina's new twins, the scandal hopper was empty. It was a brilliant political move for a liberal magazine to take and they lucked out in the timing of it all. It was one of the most talked about stories this week after his beautiful lift and separate from Jesse Jackson (talk about falling on your sword for a candidate.) I am watching the coverage and the talking heads are falling all over themselves trying to condemn the New Yorker...even the Fox heads are haltingly going after it.

The problem/benefit is this: Fox HAS to go after it just as vigorously in order to to keep up and by doing so, they are forced to discuss Obama's status as a terorist, a muslim, an unpatriotic boob who wants to burn the flag and his wife hates whitey and is fond of the terrorist fist jab. They exploded the stereotype which has been hounding Obama and FOX HAS to examine the mushroom cloud and break it down for their viewers, a small population of which believe all or some of the above. It's forcing FOX and Fellows to educate their consumer and also shames those who continue to support those stereotypes.

It certainly hobbles a line of attack for Republicans in the election and confuses the Republican base. If Obama is not muslim, terrorist or unpatriotic, then he's just a bad democrat which doesn't get as many people off their couch to vote. Whether intentionally or not, the media is now trained and focused on the job of knocking down slander along these routes and I think they are honestly happy to do it. Slow by slow, McCain may have NOTHING to go after Obama on after he vists the Middle East this week. He is floundering. He's still dangerous as we've seen. All it takes is one terrorist attack and he'll have a platform again.

One of these guys is going to win and they can't be destroyed by the this process. If we want America to pull itself out of the messes it is in right now, we MUST make sure that in the process of electing them, we don't destroy them. They must be able to effectively lead here and abroad in a time of crisis.

Good call Watkins.

Dan is SMART -- but I wonder about his sense of FASHION.

wow, you psychic or something

He just wants Mooseburgers to be declared as the national food!

But moose are so cute. Has anyone here eaten a moosburger? I've run into quite a few in Minnesota and the smell is not good. I can't imagine eating what's on the inside.

As Rudy said:

"[She] can field dress a moose!" (or was it caribou?)

For those of you who think that means dressing them up for Halloween like Paris Hilton does to her little chihuahua, look it up in Wikipedia.

Ooops!

lipstick. soccer moms. pit bulls. i dont think i have ever wanted someone to lose so badly before, until now. she's obnoxious.