Oh Baby ...... today's PressRun comments will sizzle because just about all of us love Jennifer Rubin. That's because PressRun is about the problems of media coverage, and Jennifer Rubin is one of the two strongest voices on these problems.
She is terrific, Eric, and so are you. How much blowback do you get from the "Bro-MSM?" I can only imagine. I was a J-school major in 1972 during the Pentagon Papers era and Watergate. What the hell happened?
Jennifer Rubin has always had a strong, not for sale, voice. She realized early on that conservative principles and trumpism were not compatible and stood her ground and reported what she saw in the trump WH. That she is continuing to do so for the Biden WH is called doing her job. In contrast Haberman is a suspect journalist who’s loyalties have become very clear and a reason for print media’s decline. As for Politico, it’s only value is on the bottom of the litter box.
Recall Maggie's scolding tsk tsk of Michelle Wolf for her dead-on withering remarks at WH correspondents dinner - and the subsequent press pile on? Haberman represents all that's is wong with "political press."
Maggie never, ever mentions it, but her mother, Nancy Haberman, is one of Trump's longtime media communicators. Why do you think when Trump needed a quick positive story to counteract something, he went to Maggie? Every time?
And we the "liberal" Great Unwashed are the only ones who tweet about that. To my knowledge it was never disclosed by Axis Maggie or NY Slimes. Jennifer Rubin, on the other hand, always mentions when relevant that she is commentator on MSNBC or Bezos owns Amazon.
I would like to see a discussion about the issue of given sources overly broad protection. It appears that far too often “protecting my sources” is an excuse for not reporting on wrongdoing by those sources in areas unrelated to what they have been telling the reporter about.
I recently read an article that described how a reporter, Nancy Montpelier, had refused to come forward about her personal experience with Clarence Thomas’s inappropriate sexual remarks. Her excuse was that he had been a good source for her when she was covering the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
I also suspect the reason the media has steadfastly refused to report on all those unauthorized leaks from the NY FBI office during the 2016 campaign designed to damage Hillary. Journalists have also refused to cover the fact that there has been (still is?) a long-running IG investigation of those leaks. The NY FBI office is well-known for leaking like a sieve to reporters, going back to the Clinton investigations. In a healthy democracy that would be a major story but journalists care more about access that giving the public information it has a right to know.
She makes her case like a lawyer. Thesis, followed by back up supporting arguments which include data/facts. In one of my ranty comments in response to WaPo article I said when I look at the home page I have already questioned the legitimacy of the "stories" posted. I assume at least 90% are gossipy screeds in which statements are blown out of proportion with the intent of making Biden look bad. If Jennifer Rubin criticizes Biden or his administration I will definitely use it as a source to form an opinion.
I despise Politico and stopped reading it quite a while ago. Its conservative bias is clear, which means its credibility is zilch in my mind. The Hill is moving into that territory as well. "Both sides do it" is cut from the same disinformation cloth as "stop the steal."
The HIll has been there for awhile. The only reason they dumped the right wing Jon Solomon was that he got exposed for peddling lies about Biden and the Ukraine that came straight from his pal and Steve Bannon partner Peter Schweitzer. Here are some examples of other times the Hill willingly parroted right wing talking points.
Thanks, Theodora. Truth be told (since I am a progressive), I have not imbibed in The Hill that often, so I missed a lot of their agitprop on behalf or the fascists. I more often read Politico, but that's been over for me for awhile now.
For what it's worth, Brian Beutler came up with a couple of pieces that Digby referenced essentially saying that it is long past time to recognize that the Republican Party leadership has a culture that runs on bad faith. I wrote it up for Daily Kos, and it has taken off there. I figure it's worth bringing it up here, because what Politico is doing is reinforcing the bad faith at work in the way the media treats the GOP vs. Democrats. To quote Beutler:
"...The Republican Party’s core rottenness—its dishonesty, corruption, pettiness, racism—is the defining political fact of our time. Whatever we say about it, confronting all of us in the weeks and months ahead is the more important question of what we do about it. What do the rest of us—most importantly elected Democrats, but also journalists, political elites, and regular citizens—need to change about public life to account for the fact that one of the two major parties has embraced bad faith as an organizing principle?"
"...There’s an entire billion-dollar, right-wing media infrastructure that spent the previous four years parroting the Trump administration’s critique of the media"
Mainstream media for the most part ignores this indisputable fact.
But that's OK.
There's absolutely no danger in a single political party profiting from billions in free propaganda and messaging... Maybe just democracy, but little else.
I am finally done with that fool. Went for a walk instead. I am through with "Biden bad" and "Dems in disarray" and "Both side do it." Swearing off all the Sunday shows and their dipshit perspectives. They have nothing of substance to add to the debate and I have better things to do with my time.
That Mr. Boehlert refers to the "cafeteria" sends this to the head of the line for me, and reminds me of a story I heard about a reporter assigned to a story they didn't want to do, although it meant a lot of attention for them. The reporter finally went to their editor and asked off of the story. Why? Because the other reporters were teasing them in the cafeteria. And some of those involved, shall we say, now are part of the cafeteria that Mr. Boehlert mentions. Sorry to be opaque about who it is, but the name is actually familiar to many.
Tiger Beat on the Potomac’s Playbook (hat tip: Esquire’s Charlie Pierce) is the DC Society and Gossip pages, and always has been. They are the self-proclaimed hall monitors at the middle school breathlessly trying to prove that they too are the cool kids. The problem is that Playbook is the first thing the elite media reads in the morning (and bet me that they search it for their own names before reading any of the articles).
It doesn’t surprise me that they pulled a dick move of publishing Rubin’s letter. That seems perfectly in character. But they would scream if the tables were reversed. And remember: Maggie Haberman is a Politico alumnus. I’m sure she honed her ethics there.
For the record, I respect Rubin, but I do not love Rubin. She got burned, I’m surprised she didn’t see that coming.
As for what used to be Tiger Beat On The Potomac and after being bought by the right wing German Rupert Murdoch well they're now the political equivalent of 16 Magazine. THey've double down on the Presstitution with their worshipping DeSadist and Hot Wheels Abbott.
You are going to wear yourself out criticizing Politico for insider-ism and both sides-ism. That’s like criticizing Beethoven for writing music. It’s their raison d’etre.
I love Jennifer Rubin too. To Politico, “They can’t handle the truth.” I’ve been considering dropping Politico for awhile. This is the last straw. How about Politico learning from one of the best in the business? Her critiques obviously hit a lot of nerves. This is a cheap shot from Politico and all those male executives who look in their mirrors and only see dollar signs. Jennifer, you go girl. We’re on your side.
Politico is now right down in the dregs with The Hill. Good that it's only us politics junkies that the majority of Americans do not read their crap. They have totally sold out.
I thought Haberman’s beat, essentially if not officially, was to pass along leaks from anonymous sources very close to and maybe including Trump. No original reporting, just note taking. Seriously; I’m convinced. (OTOH, her tweets are occasionally better journalism than her stuff in the Times.)
So, you know, when it comes to her opinion about anything, who cares? It’s never of any importance.
Oh Baby ...... today's PressRun comments will sizzle because just about all of us love Jennifer Rubin. That's because PressRun is about the problems of media coverage, and Jennifer Rubin is one of the two strongest voices on these problems.
she’s very good at identifying media problems and is not afraid to talk abt them
She is terrific, Eric, and so are you. How much blowback do you get from the "Bro-MSM?" I can only imagine. I was a J-school major in 1972 during the Pentagon Papers era and Watergate. What the hell happened?
Jennifer Rubin has always had a strong, not for sale, voice. She realized early on that conservative principles and trumpism were not compatible and stood her ground and reported what she saw in the trump WH. That she is continuing to do so for the Biden WH is called doing her job. In contrast Haberman is a suspect journalist who’s loyalties have become very clear and a reason for print media’s decline. As for Politico, it’s only value is on the bottom of the litter box.
agreed, Haberman lecturing anyone today doesn’t stand up too well
Recall Maggie's scolding tsk tsk of Michelle Wolf for her dead-on withering remarks at WH correspondents dinner - and the subsequent press pile on? Haberman represents all that's is wong with "political press."
Maggie never, ever mentions it, but her mother, Nancy Haberman, is one of Trump's longtime media communicators. Why do you think when Trump needed a quick positive story to counteract something, he went to Maggie? Every time?
wow, is all I can say...
And we the "liberal" Great Unwashed are the only ones who tweet about that. To my knowledge it was never disclosed by Axis Maggie or NY Slimes. Jennifer Rubin, on the other hand, always mentions when relevant that she is commentator on MSNBC or Bezos owns Amazon.
Spot on about Haberman...
I support Jennifer Rubin's writing. I find her very honest, and have not caught her in hyperbole or error.
agreed. Only when a Dem is President can a columnist get dinged and have his/her work questioned even tho it’s 100% accurate
I would like to see a discussion about the issue of given sources overly broad protection. It appears that far too often “protecting my sources” is an excuse for not reporting on wrongdoing by those sources in areas unrelated to what they have been telling the reporter about.
I recently read an article that described how a reporter, Nancy Montpelier, had refused to come forward about her personal experience with Clarence Thomas’s inappropriate sexual remarks. Her excuse was that he had been a good source for her when she was covering the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/02/the-case-for-impeaching-clarence-thomas.html
I also suspect the reason the media has steadfastly refused to report on all those unauthorized leaks from the NY FBI office during the 2016 campaign designed to damage Hillary. Journalists have also refused to cover the fact that there has been (still is?) a long-running IG investigation of those leaks. The NY FBI office is well-known for leaking like a sieve to reporters, going back to the Clinton investigations. In a healthy democracy that would be a major story but journalists care more about access that giving the public information it has a right to know.
She makes her case like a lawyer. Thesis, followed by back up supporting arguments which include data/facts. In one of my ranty comments in response to WaPo article I said when I look at the home page I have already questioned the legitimacy of the "stories" posted. I assume at least 90% are gossipy screeds in which statements are blown out of proportion with the intent of making Biden look bad. If Jennifer Rubin criticizes Biden or his administration I will definitely use it as a source to form an opinion.
I despise Politico and stopped reading it quite a while ago. Its conservative bias is clear, which means its credibility is zilch in my mind. The Hill is moving into that territory as well. "Both sides do it" is cut from the same disinformation cloth as "stop the steal."
The HIll has been there for awhile. The only reason they dumped the right wing Jon Solomon was that he got exposed for peddling lies about Biden and the Ukraine that came straight from his pal and Steve Bannon partner Peter Schweitzer. Here are some examples of other times the Hill willingly parroted right wing talking points.
https://www.mediamatters.org/hill
Thanks, Theodora. Truth be told (since I am a progressive), I have not imbibed in The Hill that often, so I missed a lot of their agitprop on behalf or the fascists. I more often read Politico, but that's been over for me for awhile now.
Truth...has been there for awhile.
Me too.
For what it's worth, Brian Beutler came up with a couple of pieces that Digby referenced essentially saying that it is long past time to recognize that the Republican Party leadership has a culture that runs on bad faith. I wrote it up for Daily Kos, and it has taken off there. I figure it's worth bringing it up here, because what Politico is doing is reinforcing the bad faith at work in the way the media treats the GOP vs. Democrats. To quote Beutler:
"...The Republican Party’s core rottenness—its dishonesty, corruption, pettiness, racism—is the defining political fact of our time. Whatever we say about it, confronting all of us in the weeks and months ahead is the more important question of what we do about it. What do the rest of us—most importantly elected Democrats, but also journalists, political elites, and regular citizens—need to change about public life to account for the fact that one of the two major parties has embraced bad faith as an organizing principle?"
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2021/9/18/2053094/-Brian-Beutler-explains-why-Republican-elites-are-deliberately-anti-vaxx-and-more
Brilliant!
"...There’s an entire billion-dollar, right-wing media infrastructure that spent the previous four years parroting the Trump administration’s critique of the media"
Mainstream media for the most part ignores this indisputable fact.
But that's OK.
There's absolutely no danger in a single political party profiting from billions in free propaganda and messaging... Maybe just democracy, but little else.
Just like yesterday's Press The Meat where Chuck U Todd once again had no Democrats appearing
I am finally done with that fool. Went for a walk instead. I am through with "Biden bad" and "Dems in disarray" and "Both side do it." Swearing off all the Sunday shows and their dipshit perspectives. They have nothing of substance to add to the debate and I have better things to do with my time.
That Mr. Boehlert refers to the "cafeteria" sends this to the head of the line for me, and reminds me of a story I heard about a reporter assigned to a story they didn't want to do, although it meant a lot of attention for them. The reporter finally went to their editor and asked off of the story. Why? Because the other reporters were teasing them in the cafeteria. And some of those involved, shall we say, now are part of the cafeteria that Mr. Boehlert mentions. Sorry to be opaque about who it is, but the name is actually familiar to many.
Tiger Beat on the Potomac’s Playbook (hat tip: Esquire’s Charlie Pierce) is the DC Society and Gossip pages, and always has been. They are the self-proclaimed hall monitors at the middle school breathlessly trying to prove that they too are the cool kids. The problem is that Playbook is the first thing the elite media reads in the morning (and bet me that they search it for their own names before reading any of the articles).
It doesn’t surprise me that they pulled a dick move of publishing Rubin’s letter. That seems perfectly in character. But they would scream if the tables were reversed. And remember: Maggie Haberman is a Politico alumnus. I’m sure she honed her ethics there.
For the record, I respect Rubin, but I do not love Rubin. She got burned, I’m surprised she didn’t see that coming.
At the first "expose" of Politico by Eric Boehlert, I cancelled my subscription to it.
I love Jennifer Rubin.
As for what used to be Tiger Beat On The Potomac and after being bought by the right wing German Rupert Murdoch well they're now the political equivalent of 16 Magazine. THey've double down on the Presstitution with their worshipping DeSadist and Hot Wheels Abbott.
You are going to wear yourself out criticizing Politico for insider-ism and both sides-ism. That’s like criticizing Beethoven for writing music. It’s their raison d’etre.
However we can cancel our ‘subscriptions’ which is what I did today. Money talks.
I love Jennifer Rubin too. To Politico, “They can’t handle the truth.” I’ve been considering dropping Politico for awhile. This is the last straw. How about Politico learning from one of the best in the business? Her critiques obviously hit a lot of nerves. This is a cheap shot from Politico and all those male executives who look in their mirrors and only see dollar signs. Jennifer, you go girl. We’re on your side.
Ps. As to Haberman, she left her ethics at the door of the FG.
What ethics? She never had any to begin with!
Politico is now right down in the dregs with The Hill. Good that it's only us politics junkies that the majority of Americans do not read their crap. They have totally sold out.
I thought Haberman’s beat, essentially if not officially, was to pass along leaks from anonymous sources very close to and maybe including Trump. No original reporting, just note taking. Seriously; I’m convinced. (OTOH, her tweets are occasionally better journalism than her stuff in the Times.)
So, you know, when it comes to her opinion about anything, who cares? It’s never of any importance.
Get used to it… Politico has/will become nothing more than a right wing rag.
Maggie Haberman. One of the many reasons I don't read the NYTimes. J. Rubin, one of the many reasons I do read the W. Post.