Whose Michael is it anyway?

A week ago I was torn between thinking that the media circus surrounding Michael Jackson's death was too much, and feeling like it was warranted by goosebumps I feel whenever I hear "Man in the Mirror." Many others were feeling the latter, as his music was, well "the soundtrack of our lives." (Sorry, worst turn of phrase ever.) To be fair, a lot of the coverage is coming from and being driven by the blogosphere, facebook, twitter, youtube and random people moonwalking down the street, so perhaps the mainstream media is really taking its cue from the people. For a man who received unprecedented media attention for most of life-- a lot of it negative in the past two decades -- it stands to reason that it would only reach a climax with his death.

But now, here we are a week later and all the major cable networks are following Michael Jackson's hearse and motorcade while all sorts of "industry experts" talk off camera about his impact, legacy, popularity. And all the while, I am pretty sure I heard that seven Americans died in Afghanistan yesterday. Isn't the primary role of CNN, FOX and MSNBC to cover things such as Americans being killed in foreign wars?

I'm not suggesting that they don't air the actual memorial service, but the parking and driving adventures of the motorcade a good two hours before the service starts? And not to single-out any one "journalist", but I thought Anderson Cooper interviewed heads of state and covered ravaged New Orleans? It is very unclear to me why he was voice-overing the memorial pre-show.

I thought there was a division of labor where entertainment "journalists" covered entertainment and the "real journalists" covered the rest. But really, that was so 80's... when Michael Jackson was really someone to revere.

Pomp & Circumstance

While there are many great examples of questionable, poor or sensational media coverage to draw from today, I am instead going to focus on an event that is not getting any media coverage at all.  That event would be today's  Hunter College Commencement Exercises at Radio City Music Hall, a ceremony in which I will be sporting a grape-hued gown and mortar board alongside 3,000 of my closest friends.  

My college journey began in September, 1994 and now it's over. It really went by fast. 

Just kidding.  

When it comes to graduations it is very difficult to use phrases that are not cliche.  But I really do believe that everything happens for a reason.  Just think:  if I had graduated from Providence College in 1998 this blog would have never existed. Hard to imagine, right? 

Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis will be the speaker, so I will let you know how that goes.  It's a very happy day, in any case. 

Would You Rather?

I forgot to mention that several weeks back, I heard Dan Rather speak at The City College of New York in a lecture called, "Democracy and the 24-Hour News Cycle." Rather's talk--which began and ended with two great anecdotes about his working life before he was one of the three "voices of God"--was, not surprisingly, critical of the fact that most mainstream media is owned and operated by major corporate interests that favor profit over content and who have a cozy relationships with government officials. (Sidebar: He did not once mention his $70 million lawsuit against CBS)

To his credit, Rather went to great lengths to take part of the blame for the dumbing down of the news, but he warned that those who believe newspapers are vestiges of the past or who think their proponents are merely waxing nostalgic should take heed: a healthy democracy depends on a strong and independent media. When newspapers go, Rather said, so goes what remains of original, investigative reporting. 

He spoke about the 20-minute news cycle that existed when he first started in the business (CBS and NBC carried 20 minutes of news at the end of the day) and the difference in coverage that was shorter, more vital, and not tied to profits. What a difference 40 years makes.  Many of us like to think of ourselves as extremely informed because we can go online or turn on the t.v. at any time and get the latest "news," but how much understanding can really be gleaned from a 15 second clip?  When does more actually become worse? 

You can listen to his entire speech here. 

The Press & The Pols: So Happy Together

No matter the party in power or the man in the oval office, no event better illustrates the cozy relationship between the press and politicians like the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner.  

At its most base, the system works like this: government officials offer access and in return for that access and close proximity the press does not criticize too much or ask too many hard questions. Nothing says democracy like a good party, so to celebrate this friendship between the fourth estate and the government, there is a big black tie dinner every year sprinkled with celebrities. 

What a difference three years makes. Remember Stephen Colbert's roast of President Bush and the media which, oddly enough, received a scant amount of media attention? The mainstream media coverage ignored Colbert's jokes and instead focused on the Bush impersonator who preceded him in the line up. Some argued that the press was uncomfortable with Colbert's performance, making fun of the President essentially to his face. But what really made the press uncomfortable were Colbert's jabs at them. 

It's definitely awkward, but worth another look:


Flash forward to last Sunday night. Wanda Sykes is the comedienne. Barack Obama is the president. She makes a (bad? even offensive?) joke about Rush Limbaugh's kidneys failing and the possibility that he was the 20th hijacker on 9/11 and the media swarms. 

Considering the criticism the media has received for its seemingly all too favorable coverage of the now president, I would have thought Wanda would have made more jokes directed their way.  But maybe she learned a lesson from her predecessor: those afflicted with Insider Syndrome prefer that you don't mention it.  If you do, they will just edit you out.  

Bristol's Baby Blues?

The Palin family has obviously had a contentious relationship with the media, which makes me wonder why Bristol would willingly subject herself to said media. She is now the ambassador for teen pregnancy for the Candie's Foundation.  I'm just not clear on how she can be a spokesperson for abstinence, considering she has a baby. Still I give her credit for trying to use the fame thrust upon her to talk about the perils of teen pregnancy, but then I watch these interviews and wonder, is she?

I'm not saying Miss Palin is an easy interview, but come on Chris Cuomo. I think the Candie's Foundation , whose mission is "to educate America's youth about the devastating consequences of teen pregnancy" (italics mine) may need to help her with her message. Or perhaps, Mr Cuomo needs to work on his interviewing skills.

If you think that was awkward, press play:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

At least Matt Lauer tried. Does he look like a bully ? Is her dad there for protection? Is asking about Levi too personal? Does Miss Palin realize she is on TV talking about one of the most 'personal' subjects possible? Maybe she just really dislikes Matt Lauer.  She stares at her sleeping baby for most of the interview.

BREAKING NEWS: John Edwards Broke His Wife's Heart

                               
So Elizabeth Edwards goes on Oprah to help her promote her new memoir. I don't know why she wanted to write another memoir, especially one about her husband's affair and the aftermath, but she is entitled to do as much.  (Although from the looks of their house in the promos, she does not need the money.) Oprah is vigorously promoting this exclusive interview in which she was apparently allowed to ask Edwards any question she wanted. The ads are really dramatic and creepy, but fine.  My question--my problem really-- is why is Oprah's interview with Elizabeth Edwards the teaser for the 5 o'clock news and in the Times and everywhere? Where is the news?

Does anyone really care about John Edwards anymore or his maybe baby with the other woman? Maybe you do. Obviously someone does. But why? Is he running for anything? Such rehashing of public betrayal and private pain so long after the fact is fine for a memoir or a talk show, but on the news and in the New York Times?

I guess book publishers, show producers, news ratings gurus, and perhaps Mrs. Edwards herself are banking on schadenfreude as an irrepressible American impulse. Elizabeth Edwards had cancer, during which time her husband cheated on her and may or may not have fathered a baby as a result. Feel better now?

It's clear that journalists are sick of writing about the economy (see swine flu), so why aren't they digging around for the next politician who is or was cheating on his wife?  If it's the misery of others we so long to see, let's at least make it about someone we might be able to vote for or against.  Then at least it is news-- base and ugly, sure, but news. This is no news at all. 

Just when you thought it was safe...

to remove your surgical mask, this is what I heard at the top of hour during the morning commute on more than a few radio stations -- 1010WINS and 77WABC  among them:  NEW YORK CITY TEEN BLINDED AND BABY BRAIN DEAD FROM RACCOON ROUNDWORM.  I think the Daily News broke the story.

There is not much to say about this really, except that just when the local media decided it might have been a tad heavy-handed with the swine flu, it was deemed prudent to sound the alarm to New Yorkers about raccoon roundworm.  A disease, I might add, that occurs when people, in these cases children, come into contact with raccoon feces.  Now, there are many potential hazards associated with raising children in the city: asthma, strollers on the subway, finding a decent public school, etc.  Brooklyn children playing catch with raccoon feces does not seem like something we should be adding to the list.   I will give the Daily News a pass if it was a one time story. Any flagrant follow-ups by any of the aforementioned organizations will garner a big wag of the finger by me.  That goes for you too MSNBC. 

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid

What is worse, the fact that this flu-that-shall-remain-nameless-because-H1N1- is-a-ridiculous-name has become such a media frenzy, causing seemingly otherwise rational people to not want to leave their homes or if they must, to wear a surgical mask OR that the W.H.O. (who?) has gotten in on this flu-naming act and says no to swine and yes to H1N1? They could have at least made it into a acronym that can be easily pronounced by the mask wearers (mentioned above.) Like, high-nigh or perhaps high-nee. These are terrible suggestions of course, but what of the alternative? 

My favorite highlight from yesterday, besides Joe Biden confessing he wants to tunnel down into a bunker until this flu clears, was also from The Today Show.  Dr. Nancy Snyderman, the doctor who is on that show every day for so many segments a day, that it makes me wonder when she actually, well, treats patients?   In an effort to show viewers that they cannot get the-virus-formerly-known-as-swine-flu from eating pork, she went up to a street vendor and ordered a gyro or some such pork sandwich.  I don't know about you, but it is not the flu that I'm afraid of contracting when I dine at such establishments.  Hopefully the street meat lobby did not hear that.  

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Just Don't Call It Swine Flu

During a press briefing yesterday, the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsack was imploring the media to stop calling this new potential pandemic virus swine flu.

"Q What is the point of monitoring the swine population? If you can't get this
flu from swine, why check swine at all?
SEC. VILSACK: Because it could impact and affect the
industry itself. This is more about the economics of it rather than the human
side and human illness side of it.
Q Is it because of the name "swine flu"?
I mean, you're not looking at horses or cows or anything else.
SEC. VILSACK: Just -- which is
precisely the reason why we have asked, and there has been a response to change
the name of this. This really isn't swine flu. It's H1N1 virus. That's very,
very important. And it is significant, because there are a lot of hardworking
families whose livelihood depends on us conveying this message of safety."

You can read the full transcript here.

Sec. Vilsack's message has already taken hold. This morning on both NY1 and The Today Show

(before the story of the woman who was chased by a bear and hit by a car) the anchors were calling this flu "H1N1" or, referring to it first as "Swine Flu" and then following it up with the preferred "H1N1." Perhaps this is an instance where getting control of the media message is actually serving people. This flu does not come from eating pork. If people think it does, they will stop buying pork and more economic fallout will ensue.

I can't help but be reminded of of the lawsuit the cattle industry brought against Oprah after she said she would never eat another burger and the price of beef fell . Is the person who started using the term swine flu afraid of similar litigation? The point of this story may be that when government, media and heavily lobbied industry get together the results are powerful. Still, with 91 people confirmed to have this flu the U.S. and one person dead, what's in a name?

Pirates, Puppies and Tea Parties

Are you as glad as I am that this week is finally drawing to a close?

With the faltering economy finally getting some competition from other events, some of them (gasp!) of the international sort; it is enough to make a citizen wonder: should I really be afraid of pirates?  

Modern-day pirates (sans eye patches and hooks for hands) have actually been in the news since 1999.  There's been an uptick in activities by Somali pirates and increasing coverage about it since November, but it did not capture the American media's attention until one of our own was captured. I found The Guardian's coverage and archives on the subject pretty interesting. You may too. 

According to the Pew Research Center, the pirate story came close to receiving almost as much coverage as the economic crisis/meltdown/downward spiral.  Is this a good thing? Maybe we are experiencing economic crisis fatigue and thus are more interested in such newsy items as the the new pup on Pennsylvania Avenue. Or maybe the more likely scenario is that the mainstream media is tired of reporting on the economy.  I mean, job losses after job losses, plunging Dow after plunging Dow--how many different ways can they really tell that story?  Oh but wait, that is actually their job.

As for the widely publicized tea parties on Wednesday, and while we're on the subject of reporters doing their job, I think James Rainey of the L.A. Times put it best, calling out FOX for promoting and hyping these protests, and MSNBC for trying to downplay and marginalize the participants... all before anything even happened. Wrote Rainey:

"I've got a novel idea: How about if we wait and see what happens at these rallies? Maybe journalists can watch, report how many people are there, describe the kinds of things they say and tell us what they plan to do next."  

I think he is suggesting that journalists actually practice the craft of journalism. Weird, right?

All I can say about Bo Obama is that a Google search elicits 3,496 news articles about the dog. That doesn't include the countless hours of footage, coverage and interviews on radio and t.v.  Maybe it is just the kind of good news people are looking for, except that a lot of it is pretty critical of the breed--a Portuguese Water dog-- and about the fact that they didn't adopt a shelter dog, but of course you knew that. 

Fine then. But do you know which country owns most of our debt? Or what the current unemployment rate is? Here's a quiz for you to test your "real" news knowledge. You may end up much more scared of our national debt than pirates.

What Happened to the God-less media?

I just turned on the television and thought for a moment that the The Prayer Channel had taken over the airwaves.  As it turns out, it is just the installation of the new Archbishop of New York.  Now, as a Catholic, I know it is big deal when the Arch gets a new Archbishop. I get the pomp and circumstance and gravity of the transition of leadership. But this blog is not about the Catholic church, or religion: it is about the media. 

So I have to ask: does this event, which really impacts 2.5 million people and only 3 of NYC's 5 boroughs, really warrant five hours of live, non-stop coverage on New York 1, NBC, FOX, ABC, and WOR?  Since the mass of installation is a big chunk of this coverage, I am wondering if the networks are actually proselytizing.  On NBC for example, the commentator who is clearly not an impartial journalist but is not identified as anything else, described the new Archbishop Dolan's homily as "amazing" and then explained how the Eucharist and wine is "transformed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ."  The commentator should at the very least be identified as a Catholic journalist or priest or whatever he is.  On FOX, they don't even have their own cameras inside; they announced that they are using the Archdiocese's footage.  Cozy much?

If it is some sort of media/church  conspiracy to get more people to join the ranks, they are not selling their product very well.  There are about 20+ gray-haired, white-skinned, old men standing behind the altar. Oh wait, I see one brown-skinned man peeking out in the back. Since more and more practicing Catholics are various shades of brown, this "program" is a pretty lousy recruitment tool.  As the camera pans the audience, I see such prominent people as the celebrity chef Lidia Bastianich and thrice married former mayor Rudy Guiliani. Hmm..So what are these stations up to? I can understand an hour or so, but five hours and a full mass seems excessive. The media is often accused of being a propaganda tool for the far left. Not so today.  

Limbaugh Gets More Free Airtime

Who cares that Limbaugh is selling his New York penthouse? Why should Governor Paterson even take a breath to address it... even if it is a "joke"? But these are small matters compared to the media's coverage of the "skirmish."  NBC -4 on its 11 o'clock newscast called it a "controversy" and "Paterson versus Limbaugh."   This is the same sort of false equivalency the press tried to create between President Obama and Rush Limbaugh.  How can a state governor with umpteen years of public service who is actually making decisions that impact people's lives be on the same level as a radio personality who makes millions spewing invectives? I don't even like Gov. Paterson or think he is doing a very effective job, but that is not the point.  These false equivalencies--aided by visuals (which I've tried to recreate here)  give personalities like Limbaugh free publicity that they certainly don't need.  More than that though, these kind of media-enhanced-pitched-battles only further cloud the real issues from the public.  Complicated issues like the fiscal health of New York State and the tax code among other things get glossed over in favor of a contrived dog fight.  Responsible journalism at its best. 

Jon Stewart's Slightly Different Take

While my hypothesis was that the constant noise of CNBC led traders to scream "sell" when it came to Bear and others who have found less worse fates, Jon Stewart posits that it was CNBC's complicity that led to our current financial mess.  He, now famously, grilled Jim Cramer about the, well--to put it kindly-- lack of investigative, reporting or even questioning skills possessed by CNBC "journalists", their all too cozy relationships with CEO's and their siren call to Americans who watched faithfully, invested accordingly and are now in the poorhouse, or as it were, no house.  

Maybe Stewart's outrage that CNBC didn't see Bear Sterns or the current crisis coming actually fits in nicely with my idea that the hysteria surrounding the early days of the banking crisis was set off and paraded around by CNBC's pundits and reporters alike because, in their ineptitude, they were just as shocked and hysterical as everyone else?

Was Bear's demise CNBC's fault?

I recently watched a very informative and compelling special on CNBC called "House of Cards"  where David Faber, anchor of the CNBC show "Squawk on the Street" analyzes the current economic problems in the U.S. and exactly how we got here.  

When the program ended, I felt like I actually had a handle on credit-default swaps and mortgage-backed securities.  It was also clear to me that there isn't one person or group who can escape blame in this ordeal. From the individuals who deluded themselves into thinking they could afford a $700,000 house because someone they never met told them they could, to the bankers who took bad mortgages and spread them around the world, to the Congress who decided people must and should own their own homes...no matter what.  

But there was one strange thing about the show.  Much of the B-roll-- the trading floors and the desks at Lehman Brothers--showed televisions with CNBC on in the background, or in some cases, foreground.  At first I thought this was just shameless self promotion. I always assumed brokers and traders watched Bloomberg.  But, as we were taken through the nitty-gritty of the Bear Stearns collapse, and then the failure of Lehman, it became clear by watching the people on the floor of the Stock Exchange watching the television screens, that where the hyped-up coverage ended and the sell-offs began was difficult to distinguish.  I couldn't help but wonder how things might have turned out differently had CNBC not been on, had they not had an anchor booth on the floor of the stock exchange or had the business networks let the events occur and then reported on them.  

"House of Cards" squarely and, I think, fairly, implicated many people and players in this economic downturn. The only one left out--at least by name--was the media, in particular 24-hour business news shows. 

 

When you read something, you are told to be sure to read between the lines.  I would add: when you watch something, you should really pay attention to the B-roll.