| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
For most of modern media history, the reporting of scandals has been used to attract readers. From Wikipedia:
Yellow journalism is a pejorative reference to journalism that features scandal-mongering, sensationalism, jingoism or other unethical or unprofessional practices by news media organizations or individual journalists.
The term originated during the circulation battles between Joseph Pulitzer's New York World and William Randolph Hearst's New York Journal from 1895 to about 1898, and can refer specifically to this period. Both papers were accused by critics of sensationalizing the news in order to drive up circulation, although the newspapers did serious reporting as well. The New York Press coined the term "Yellow Journalism" in early 1897 to describe the papers of Pulitzer and Hearst.
The trend continues to this day. But many groups have now found that they can use this to manipulate the press - that if they shout "scandal," the press will amplify those shouts, rather than examine them.
Which brings us to the attorney firings. From Dick Morris:
THE TOTALLY PHONY US ATTORNEY SCANDAL
Meanwhile, the Democrats are trying to dominate the media - now that Bush has good news from Iraq - with the phoniest of all scandals since the Valerie Plane leak. They are outraged that Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales fired seven US Attorneys.
But these officials serve at the president's pleasure! He can fire any of them anytime for any reason. If he didn't like their hairstyle, he could bounce them. In fact, their four year terms had all expired and they were being carried on month-to-month anyway.
So what is the big deal? The Democrats (and some confused Republicans like Senator John Ensign of Nevada) say that Gonzales fired the prosecutors for political reasons - that they failed to be sufficiently aggressive in prosecuting certain cases such as voter fraud prosecutions. Well, so what? That's why we have political appointees in the US Attorney jobs. If we wanted nonpolitical figures, we would make them civil service positions. We have an appointed Attorney General and appointed US Attorneys precisely so that the president can impact their prosecutorial decisions to conform to his policy and program priorities.
But watch the Democrats use this crazy issue to attack the Administration - especially after they couldn't pass the Iraq troop withdrawal.
Emails written by Kyle Sampson, described by CBS as "Gonzales' top aide," provide relevant legal and historical information:
From: Sampson, Kyle
Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 7:34 PM
To: 'David G. Leitch
Subject: RE: Question from Karl Rove
Judge and I discussed briefly a couple of weeks ago. My thoughts are:
1. As a legal matter, U.S. Attorneys serve a 4-year term and may holdover indefinately thereafter (all at the pleasure of the President, of course). None of the President's U.S. Attorney appointees have served a full term yet -- the first were confirmed in September 2001, and many were confirmed during the 12 months thereafter. Although they serve at the pleasure of the President, it would be weird to ask them to leave before completing at least a 4-year term.
2. As an historical matter, U.S. Attorneys served at least until the expiration of their 4-year term, even where an election changed the party in power -- until President Clinton fired the Bush4l-appointed U.S. attorneys in 1993, nearly all of whom were in the midst of their 4-year terms. In 2001, President Bush43 fired the Clinton-appointed U.S. Attorneys, some of whom were in the midst of a 4-year term, but many of whom had completed their 4-year terms and were serving in holdover status.
The law says that U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President - it cannot be illegal for the President to fire them. But Liberals know that if they shout "scandal" the MSM will amplify those shouts, rather than examine them.
And now the public is noticing how easily MSM can be manipulated. MSM has already convinced the majority of the public that it has a bias:
The vast majority of American voters detect the presence of political bias in the mainstream news media, according to a Zogby poll released yesterday in conjunction with the George Washington University Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet.
Sentiment is strong: 83 percent of likely voters think bias is "alive and well." Of that number, 64 percent said the press leans left, while slightly more than a quarter -- 28 percent -- said there was a conservative bias.
Naturally, there's a partisan divide, and a pronounced one. Among Republican respondents, 97 percent said the press was liberal. Two-thirds of political independents agreed with them, with less than a quarter of the independents -- 23 percent -- saying there was a conservative bias.
By jumping whenever anyone uses this claimed-scandal strategy, MSM is confirming in the minds of the public that it is an unreliable source of key political information. This is doing incalculable harm to MSM, as the public begins to turn away from MSM to get its news elsewhere.
In this day and age, it's not just specific groups of U.S. citizens who rely on MSM to amplify, rather than to responsibly examine, claims of outrage. It's also the radical Islamists who do so, rioting over the Mohammed cartoons, anticipating that MSM won't criticize their rationale. It's also Hezbollah, who use phony photos to fake outrage, expecting that MSM would merely reprint them, rather than question them.
But the vast number of people worldwide who have gotten into the claimed-scandal business, provide MSM with a golden opportunity to rebuild its reputation for trustworthiness and reliability. All MSM has to do is to start seriously examining every claim of outrage, rather than reporting it in a knee-jerk fashion.
The old strategy of using scandal to sell papers has reached a point of diminishing returns, and is now causing more harm than good to the mainstream media that use it.
Conclusion: At this time, when the public is turning away from MSM to get its news elsewhere, MSM must reestablish its reliability in the eyes of the public. It must do this by responsibly questioning cries of outrage - rather than by amplifying them.
