This Is "Journalism"?
This is what passes for journalism in America today. Here's the title: "Poll: Bush Presidency Judged Unsuccessful." Well, commissioning a poll and then discussing it is certainly easier than having to expend some effort and shoe-leather in actually reporting on an event happening in the world. Much simpler to create a story, and then write about it. The only problem is that it isn't actually journalism.
Not only is the story silly in terms of the process through which it came to be, it's also silly in its substance. The poll being cited means nothing. What do you think polls would have shown in the midst of Iran-Contra or after Monica Lewinsky's media debut? The issue isn't what people think of any President's term now; it's what history will record ten, twenty or 100 years later.
Not only is the story silly in terms of the process through which it came to be, it's also silly in its substance. The poll being cited means nothing. What do you think polls would have shown in the midst of Iran-Contra or after Monica Lewinsky's media debut? The issue isn't what people think of any President's term now; it's what history will record ten, twenty or 100 years later.
posted by LadybugUSA at 5:48 PM
3 Comments:
You call Brit Hume a journalist? He'll lie and slime people at the WH's whim.
http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/079481.asp
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Alice Batchelder was reportedly on the Administration's short list for a Supreme Court vacancy at some point. According to FNC's Brit Hume, she was struck from the list because of a record of "judicial activism." In response to Bill Kristol's suggestion that Batchelder would have been a better nominee on Fox News Sunday, Hume said
I can tell you this about Alice Batchelder. She was very, very closely vetted. And you know what they found? They found all kinds of evidence of activism in her record. And they were quite surprised and not pleased to find that.
Those familiar with Batchelder's record were surprised at the charge. . . .
When Kristol questioned this new smear tactic, Brit incredulously suggested that this is something he found on his own. But, as Brit's first statement makes clear, the only way he could have gotten this information about White House opinion is by hearing it from the White House . . .
. . . [S]mearing qualified candidates for the Court is no way for this administration to win back the trust and loyalty of the conservative base.
Carol -- say that the poll had gone the other way, singing the praises of Bush (a long shot from sfgate.com I know). Would you be so harshly indicting the non-journalism of the poll?
HouseofSin; You have discovered Carol's very M.O. (taken from the Karl Rove Manual). You attack anything negative to your cause. Spin it as "biased", "liberal", etc. and then point to the same type of information when it supports your view and call it "good solid journalism", "fair and balanced", etc. Welcome to George Orwell and 1984 (only 20 years late).
Post a Comment
<< Home