Hello Eric, Just want to say that I've really appreciated your work at Daily Kos, glad to find that I can follow you here. And I'm amazed at your sweetness in giving us the most modest sales pitch imaginable in this frantic age!
I Want to support you, I understand I have to pay for good journalism these days and I'm up around to $250 a year; Sorry, I'm still in shock from some major emergency house repairs, so no big promises here. Yet my local community radio station lets people sign up for a $5 month minimum bank charge, it's painless, and I do think you are just as important to our culture as they are..
I'll never be on Twitter, I'd still like to say to the world that I subscribed because you an excellent writer who understands the deep problems of modern media and citizen involvement.
Eric... love your work and enjoy you on Stephanie Miller. As someone who worked 10+ years in national media, you are so right. The irony though; despite the media double-standard, Hillary Clinton BEAT Trump by near 3-million votes! My solution: Quit referring to this dynamic generally as "the media." There's no mysterious "media" lurking out there; it's comprised anchors, reporters, pundits, and EPs. Name names-- whomever it is. If Chuck Todd offers up a double standard, call him out. Call out the people who stack the show. Everyone is fair game. Unless and until the people in the anchor chair(s) and those putting together the show rundown start owning their own message, nothing will change. The "media" reports on themselves, and packages that as news. Wtf is that all about?! OK-- I'm done. For now. :)
Eric, why does the media push the narrative that the definition of a good debate or a good debate performance rests on the number of insults or jabs administered? It seems to me that may be good for ratings or selling the ”show”, but for me a good debate depends on how well a candidate explains their ideas and answers challenging questions about their proposed plans. CNN often advertises the debates like an MMA fight, and all of the networks go on about insults hurled as definitive of leadership potential.
I worry that pushing this as the standard for effective debate performance will most likely favor shameless bullies like Trump than thoughtful intellects. I can not help but believe that money plays a significant in driving this agenda, the objective being to up viewership and increase ratings which equates to more ad dollars.
What do you think? And mind you, debaters can disagree, but some of what happened in yesterday’s debate seemed gratuitous and counterproductive.
People keep thinking that the Vietnam/civil rights/Watergate era reporting was normal and is. Still the norm.
The norm before then and since the late 1980s has to eliminate all nearly all context, specially the crap the GOP has been pulling since Nixon — the culmination of which we’re experiencing now: A mobster POTUS running amok with zero push back from party and woefully, insufficiently from the press.
More on point here: If electability was handled honestly, issues would have to addressed instead of ignored as in 2016. Issues would determine electability. Instead, the establishment are again shoving bullshit down our throats. They aren’t just failing the nation thereby but doing real harm. (Again see the state we’re in.) in fact, 2016is exactly how the establishment media roll so, in a sense, there’s no lesson since it was just SOP. Still is.
Hi Eric! Gotta say that we don't have to go back to see that the msm/corporate newspeak is FIXATED (yes, in a porno kind of way) on all faults - mostly False, and a few true - of Women and People of Color. That is mostly what doomed Kamala Harris and Julian Castro, specifically.
Warren was deleted from NBC's head-to-head poll yesterday...it doesn't get worse than that.
Hello Eric, Just want to say that I've really appreciated your work at Daily Kos, glad to find that I can follow you here. And I'm amazed at your sweetness in giving us the most modest sales pitch imaginable in this frantic age!
I Want to support you, I understand I have to pay for good journalism these days and I'm up around to $250 a year; Sorry, I'm still in shock from some major emergency house repairs, so no big promises here. Yet my local community radio station lets people sign up for a $5 month minimum bank charge, it's painless, and I do think you are just as important to our culture as they are..
I'll never be on Twitter, I'd still like to say to the world that I subscribed because you an excellent writer who understands the deep problems of modern media and citizen involvement.
How The Media’s Email Obsession Obliterated Clinton Policy Coverage
WRITTEN BY ERIC BOEHLERT
PUBLISHED 11/02/16 12:03 PM EDT
Eric... love your work and enjoy you on Stephanie Miller. As someone who worked 10+ years in national media, you are so right. The irony though; despite the media double-standard, Hillary Clinton BEAT Trump by near 3-million votes! My solution: Quit referring to this dynamic generally as "the media." There's no mysterious "media" lurking out there; it's comprised anchors, reporters, pundits, and EPs. Name names-- whomever it is. If Chuck Todd offers up a double standard, call him out. Call out the people who stack the show. Everyone is fair game. Unless and until the people in the anchor chair(s) and those putting together the show rundown start owning their own message, nothing will change. The "media" reports on themselves, and packages that as news. Wtf is that all about?! OK-- I'm done. For now. :)
Eric, why does the media push the narrative that the definition of a good debate or a good debate performance rests on the number of insults or jabs administered? It seems to me that may be good for ratings or selling the ”show”, but for me a good debate depends on how well a candidate explains their ideas and answers challenging questions about their proposed plans. CNN often advertises the debates like an MMA fight, and all of the networks go on about insults hurled as definitive of leadership potential.
I worry that pushing this as the standard for effective debate performance will most likely favor shameless bullies like Trump than thoughtful intellects. I can not help but believe that money plays a significant in driving this agenda, the objective being to up viewership and increase ratings which equates to more ad dollars.
What do you think? And mind you, debaters can disagree, but some of what happened in yesterday’s debate seemed gratuitous and counterproductive.
People keep thinking that the Vietnam/civil rights/Watergate era reporting was normal and is. Still the norm.
The norm before then and since the late 1980s has to eliminate all nearly all context, specially the crap the GOP has been pulling since Nixon — the culmination of which we’re experiencing now: A mobster POTUS running amok with zero push back from party and woefully, insufficiently from the press.
More on point here: If electability was handled honestly, issues would have to addressed instead of ignored as in 2016. Issues would determine electability. Instead, the establishment are again shoving bullshit down our throats. They aren’t just failing the nation thereby but doing real harm. (Again see the state we’re in.) in fact, 2016is exactly how the establishment media roll so, in a sense, there’s no lesson since it was just SOP. Still is.
Hi Eric! Gotta say that we don't have to go back to see that the msm/corporate newspeak is FIXATED (yes, in a porno kind of way) on all faults - mostly False, and a few true - of Women and People of Color. That is mostly what doomed Kamala Harris and Julian Castro, specifically.