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.