Where have all the stories gone?
The other day, I had a post about perception and what it means to each and every one of us.
Has anyone noticed, or is it just me, but it seems as if during this past couple of years, whenever there is a story reflecting negatively about someone inside the Bush administration, it seems to appear and then evaporate quickly. This gives the term, "fifteen minutes of fame" an entirely new meaning.
Remember the stories about Rumsfeld, Abu Grab and Iraq? What about Pat Tillman and whether his death was concealed or covered up? The Downing Street Memos? And Carl Rove, a story that should be simmering if not percolating with an interest so large that it occupies the headlines each and every day seems to be less than a foot-note in today's newspapers.
Remember when Clinton and Monica Lewinsky were discovered as paramours? Months upon months of stories, day after day, to the point of being over saturated, that some parents complained that the daily news, with its talk about oral sex and stained blue dresses were not fit for prime time viewing.
Here is the question of the day: Where have all the stories gone? Is it Republican control of the media, or have we, the people of America been conditioned to believe that mishaps by the Bush administration are just not so important?
Thank you for your minds.
Has anyone noticed, or is it just me, but it seems as if during this past couple of years, whenever there is a story reflecting negatively about someone inside the Bush administration, it seems to appear and then evaporate quickly. This gives the term, "fifteen minutes of fame" an entirely new meaning.
Remember the stories about Rumsfeld, Abu Grab and Iraq? What about Pat Tillman and whether his death was concealed or covered up? The Downing Street Memos? And Carl Rove, a story that should be simmering if not percolating with an interest so large that it occupies the headlines each and every day seems to be less than a foot-note in today's newspapers.
Remember when Clinton and Monica Lewinsky were discovered as paramours? Months upon months of stories, day after day, to the point of being over saturated, that some parents complained that the daily news, with its talk about oral sex and stained blue dresses were not fit for prime time viewing.
Here is the question of the day: Where have all the stories gone? Is it Republican control of the media, or have we, the people of America been conditioned to believe that mishaps by the Bush administration are just not so important?
Thank you for your minds.
27 Comments:
Clinton had tond of scandals tha didn't get press, travelgate, chinese intel, selling the Lincoln Bedroom...the Lewinsky story got press, b/c it lasted so long..it was criminal and lead to a justified impeachment. Too bad the Senate didn't do its job
ROFLMAO
Air America steals from child's poverty program and it does not make any news. Local scandels in the Daley administration don't make the national news eather. Studies of media coverage before the election gave 70% positive coverage to Kerry and 70% negative coverage to Bush. I expect this post to be deleted.
Barb-
I think as a society we are much more interested in who gives Clinton blow jobs, than what is really going on in the world. We all know Hillary too, so that made it all the more scandalous.
Some people only get their news from Entertainment Tonight,or US Weekly magazine, so the other issues you mentioned are not even known to them. SAD.
By the way--
TAG you are it--I pondered over these questions for a while--have fun!
Here are your 5 questions.
1. You and Astro just won a trip anywhere in the world. First class, all expenses paid. Where do you take sweet Astro? What dog oriented activities do you think Astro would enjoy there?
2. Can you tell me a wonderful Holiday memory you have growing up Jewish? What Holiday traditions did your family celebrate that you really enjoyed and have fond memories of?
3. You can be world famous for having a talent --BUT not writing.
What is your world famous talent, and how do you use it to better the world?
4. Give us ladies (and gents) with no children some beautiful words of wisdom about motherhood. I know you are such a loving mother.
5. Tell me how you got interested in Fragrance. How does fragrance make you feel?
You already know the rules!
xoxo much love!
Jen
I'm glad my husband and I aren't the only ones who have notiiced. It drove my studens nuts this year that the always had a hard time finding he articles online that I would talk about in class, even when I gave them the web sites.
Mixed emotions here! But I feel most of this goes to what the Media decides to report on, but then again I may be wrong. Also believe it depends on which Media you watch on what stories you hear about most.
Wanted to say hello and wish you a great weekend. (smiling)
Thank you, Susie!
Welcome to my blog.
Have a glorious weekend.
Jen. I have answered your questions and they are posted below.
xoxox
b
http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.Old/December.04.pdf
all media has a bais the goal should be to seperate the editorial page from the news pages some news sources have a great difficulity in doing this dan rather and the new york times are examples of this. the link in previous post is a study of this subject
I think we're also living in much more "exciting" (at least for the press, who thrive on stories of chaos and dispair) times than then. So stories disappear faster becuase there's so much to upset the world with today. Why only stick to one awful story when you can have variety?
NJ,
With all due respect, where are your facts to support that conclusion?
Please re-read my post. The question is whether there is Republican control of the media, or whether or perception has changed so much that we have become conditioned to see stories in a different light. It is a question not a statement, but if you have facts to support left wing control of the media, I would love to see them.
That statement depends on which media you're talking about.
The slant goes both ways depending on the source.
As a liberal person, I become totally enraged when things like the Downing Street Memo, the Rove/Plame issue, election problems and the Iraq war don't get the type of coverage I think they need.
I'm sure Conservatives become enraged when the press doesn't cover issues like the Lincoln Bedroom.
The press walks a tightrope, trying to keep everyone happy and in the process they have rendered themselves useless.
You know the whole "sex sells" thing? Well, the Clinton administration had plenty of sex for the press to sell. With Bush in office they have had to turn to Michael Jackson, and missing girls in Aruba for the sex lead-off stories. Who cares about things like body counts, treason and lies? There's no sex there!
The press disgusts me. I can see them desperately trying to regain my respect but until they start asking the tough questions and digging deeper for the truth I will get my news elsewhere.
barbara read the link to the study i posted
if it bleeds it leads
positive news out of iraq is not in the media even if it occurs.
i find it very odd that more people haven't noticed that there are few "stories" in the news and those that are ... get quickly quieted. is something going on? who knows, but i find it odd how people "tolerate" bush as well? first four years, did most people know who cheney was and what he did? how about what he looked like? my questions were: where is he? what does he do? can that really be what he said (when he did say something)?
on other issues
Media: Rush Limbaugh's prescription drug troubles were splashed all over the media. Yet a financial scandal rocking a leftist radio network rates no coverage.
The mainstream media, fixated on bringing down Karl Rove, have so far deemed apparent funding irregularities at Air America unworthy of note. But that doesn't make them any less of story.
Here's the gist, according to The New York Sun — which is giving the scandal the coverage it deserves — and a few others, mostly bloggers and columnists, who are providing a public service:
New York City's Department of Investigation is looking into charges that $875,000 from a Bronx nonprofit group and an affiliate whose budgets are generously stuffed with local, state and federal grants was inappropriately used to fund Air America, the left's counterattack on the colossal success of conservative talk radio. ...
Public funds used to prop up a business! Just the kind of scandal that left-leaning media would die for. Yet for some reason they're giving this one a pass.
Is it because there are no mean ol' conservatives to blame?
When Limbaugh's problems with painkillers came to light, the mainstream media could hardly contain themselves. They called him a "pill popper" and hypocrite and cheered for release of his medical records. And when he returned to the air, they couldn't talk enough about his stay in rehab. ...
Nothing wrong, mind you, with reporting on Limbaugh's woes. Nothing, that is, as long as the media cover flaws of those on the left with equal enthusiasm.
I wasn't born with ADD, the American media gave it to me.
republican control of the media? that would be interesting to see...
Hmm. I don't think the media is slanted left, actually. I think they're moderate by US standards, which is actually a bit to the right.
I would agree that the scandals you mention seem to have disappeared. They were too complicated for the public to follow -- or so the media thinks. The Monicagate thing -- what could be easier to follow?
This is NOT an issue of opinion; this is an empirical question, one that my colleagues around the globe attempt to answer through rigorous and systematic content analysis. The study Yochanan refers to is but one of thousands. The best way to summarize them systematically (and in a non-biased way) is to do a systematic statistical analysis of the effect sizes (in this case, chi-square categorical differences) called a META-ANALYSIS. Fortunately political communication scholars have done this, repeatedly, over the years. Guess what the final picture is? Moderate. The overall media news picture is moderate. Not surprising, as maintaining the consumption ethic (that is, not driving away viewers) is of paramount importance when it comes to electronic media. Without viewers, they wither and die. They CAN'T take a strong, consistent stance one way or the other without losing viewers, in a country that's basically half-right and half-left. Of course there are specialized news outlets that are more right- and left-leaning than others, but when people talk about the "liberal bias in the media" they mean the media all together, and they're wrong.
Incidentally, the validity of any individual content analysis is strongly dependent on its sample. One analysis may show a strong liberal bias and another a strong conservative bias. It is a fool who points to ONE study as proof of a larger trend. Replication is the stuff of knowledge. The meta-analysis is the most scientifically sound way to get to the "bigger picture." And, when it comes to news media overall -- it's moderate.
B -- if it's true that the news media have been more merciful with Bush (and I'm not sure it is), perhaps it's because there's sort of an honor code when dealing with a president at war. If the U.S. had been attacked during Clinton's presidency, I bet he would have been treated more gently. No, I have no empirical support for this. Just a guess.
People believe what they want to.
Maybe the 70% claim was due to the fact that...uhhhh....there was some kind of war going on started under a cloud of lies and misrepresentation?
Naaa. Could not be the case. It must be the liberal media!
You gave one link to one study, conducted by who knows who. I can make a website and just post numbers to it was well. It will not make it true.
"Travelgate" was investigated. In fact, that whole thing was a leak from Ken Starr's team. Lots of Clinton "scandals" leaked from Ken Starr's office.
But the ONLY THING they could take to congress was one fat ho and one stained dress. Everything else dried up because it had no legs, not because the media ignored it.
But I know you do not want to be confused with the facts. Believe whatever you want to. Clinton was the devil himself. Clinton drinks the blood of babies. Clinton uses stem cells from aborted fetuses to make shag carpeting for his van.
But Clinton is not the president anymore. And when Clinton tried to use the military to stabilize the world, the republicans had a cow. George Bush ran in 2000 on the "America first" platform (you know, the same old isolationism crap that got us sucked into WWII).
I could go on and on, but there is no point. Logic and reasoning fails to work on ardent right wingers.
And before you call me a commie pinko anti-american leftist, keep this in mind - there was a time when I did not vote along party lines. It was the insanity of the neo-cons that pushed me into the corner I am in now.
Iguana, well said.
Bohica and NormalJew, you have never seen Republican control of the news? You have got to be kidding.
I think the media has and always will manipulate us the people. They find it easier to focus on easier subjects (like the Michael Jackson trial) than to focus on quality issues.
I tend to agree with Suzie and atreau. The media is the real power horse here. Having worked for a strongly respected local newspaper, I can tell you that they have their ways of filtering out, or more appropriately IN, anything that doesn't or does meet their collectively common political view.The general readership doesn't even catch on to this (most of the time).
I believe the stories against Bush have gone away because it was the will of God. Praise be!
I don't think the media or brain washing has anything to do with it. If the media had its way, it would love to publish any Bush scandals. Have you seen how much press this innocuous Karl Rove's case has gotten? It's the first "scandal" of the administration, and they're eating it up. I just think it has something to do with the fact that Bush is a real decent man, who wouldn't cheat on his wife. I know that after the Clinton debacle, and all the other Democrat Presidents who have cheated on their spouces or been drunks, it's hard for us to accept a decent, honorable, and respectable President. That's a shame on us story, Barb.
-OC
to worry about whether the media is slanted this way or that emphasizes the degree to which you have become bystanders in the political process. As a nation, you might be outraged about something, but as a nation you are powerless to do anything about it. You have turned 'news about news' into another consumable.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home