CNN - The Epitome of Lame Stream Media

Conservatives have for the last decade or so derisively referred to traditional news networks as the "lame stream media".  The phrase began life as an effort to undermine the ability of the media to question Conservative ideology with facts.  Rather than challenging the media's facts, Conservatives focused on undermining their credibility.  The phrase "lame stream media" was a brilliant propaganda ploy that built on decades of Conservative assertions the media had a liberal bias.  

This tool of political propaganda has been wildly successful.  Managed Conservative propaganda on Fox news started attracting more and more viewers at the expense of traditional news networks.  In response the traditional networks began focusing on ratings and have become obsessed with presenting all views rather than testing views with facts.  They bite their tongue to avoid offending Conservatives, while going out of their way to offend liberals to prove they are "unbiased".

I saw a classic example on CNN last night.  Wolf Blitzer was interviewing Bob Woodward about his new book.  The interview highlighted an assertion Woodward makes in the book that, essentially, Obama is an ineffective leader, unlike Reagan, Clinton or Bush Jr.  Blitzer focused on this assertion which is essentially the kind of character assassination common in no holds barred politics - make some ambiguous and unprovable allegation about some character defect that will appeal to a segment of the audience outside your normal audience.  You don't need to have actual data to back it up.  I believe in this case it served both Woodward and CNN to indulge in this bit of slander, Woodward trying to sell his book to Conservatives (since the left worships Woodward for his role in Watergate they are already going to buy the book) and CNN trying to hold onto Conservative's by talking trash about Obama.

A good, serious journalist would have challenged Woodward with some facts.  (See below for some of the questions that occurred to me almost immediately).  Instead he threw out a couple softball questions to allow Woodward to make some vague supporting arguments for his thesis. Basically Woodward's judgment was based on the failed debt deal of last summer saying Obama "could have done..."... this, or that.  Woodward's reasoning was about as compelling as that of a couple fan's sitting in a bar downing beers complaining about what their teams coach should have done.  Classic couch potato armchair quarterbacking, not even remotely related to serious journalism.

The fact is CNN is no longer about serious journalism, they are about entertainment.  Once they started losing viewers to Fox News serious factual investigation took a back seat to market share.  Their first priority now is not offending anyone - or more accurately, offending everyone equally to counter the claim they are biased.   

We now have in this country a partisan right wing media (most prominently Fox news), a useless lamestream media who focus on representing all opinions regardless of how lacking in factual support, and a partisan left wing media (most prominently MSNBC).

It is a sad day for american journalism when the two fellows, John Stewart and Steven Colbert, who are best at puncturing political posturing are on a comedy channel. 

Questions a serious journalist might have asked Bob Woodward about his assertion Obama has not made things happen:

What about Obama care, the most contentious piece of legislation passed in recent memory.  

Don't incontrovertible basic facts demonstrate Obama been swimming against the tide for his entire administration?  He started with an economy collapsing like a house of cards, which has been aggravated by a Republican house dedicated to preventing him from accomplishing anything?  Isn't the only President one can really compare Obama to FDR, the only other President to face anything like the circumstances Obama faced?

What did Bush do to show such superior leadership?   How is it you regard him as a better President when on simple, objective facts Bush started with a balanced budget, a healthy economy and had a Republican Congress to work with from 2001 to 2007, the period when he was supposedly showing such leadership, On top of that when 9/11 happened the nation rallied behind Bush in the face of an external threat.  Wasn't Bush swimming with the tide?  

What did Clinton do domestically that showed such great leadership?  His health care effort was a disaster and thereafter he got things done by co-opting Republican (stupid) ideas and making them his.  The 1996 Capital Gains cuts that triggered the bubbles in stocks, the housing market and anything else people could invest in over the next decade had Clinton's signature on it, and he crowed about his role in the legislation.  The 1998 repeal of Glass-Steagal that allowed Banks to make stupid bets that blew up the world economy had Clinton's signature on it, and he crowed about his role in the legislation.  Wasn't Clinton's success in domestic policy a function of the fact he was very adept at turning around and swimming with the tide to keep his popularity up?  Is that good leadership - adopting bad ideas, moderating them a little bit, then claiming the credit?

Wasn't Reagan the ultimate swimming with the tide guy?  Didn't he start with a weak economy due to the Fed's high interest rates imposed to fight inflation, that was going to get better no matter what Reagan did once the Fed began bringing interest rates down?  He had spent much of his life on Television hosting "Death Valley Days", he was a master performer who knew how to use TV.  Didn't the fact there were only three networks at that time give him a captive audience every time he went on TV (which was often) to sell his ideas?  

Isn't your effort to compare Obama's leadership ability just a transparent attempt to generate buzz about your books and maybe get some conservatives to buy your book by trashing Obama?  

Mr. Romney's unusual view on honesty to voters

My most vivid recollection of last winters debates was a response by  Mr. Romney.  He was challenged because a questioner thought Mr. Romney had ignored his question to make a statement the questioner thought was unrelated. Mr Romney responded to the challenge by saying it was his prerogative to say what he choose to say rather than answer the question.  I thought at the time it was an extraordinary statement.  Sure candidates talk around embarrassing questions all the time, so it is not like Mr. Romney was behaving unusually.  But most candidates at least pay lip service to forthrightness as they dodge and weave.  
I took Mr. Romney's statement to mean two things - 
1.  He was either not comfortable about making false statements about what he was doing or was not going to waste the time inventing a charade to pretend he was answering the question.
2.  More importantly he feels no need to disguise the fact he is willing to mislead voters to try to get them to vote for him. 
Recently his campaign again exhibited this truly extraordinary disrespect for voters.  He has evidently been running adds in a number of swing states that a whole pack of independent fact checkers, from bloggers up to the New York times, have said are essentially lies.
His campaigns official response?  Not to challenge the fact checkers facts or logic (which suggests the fact checkers are right on the facts).  Instead the campaign simply said they were not going to let fact checkers dictate their campaign strategy and they have continued to run the ads.
In a sense Mr. Romney's evident disdain for the need to tell voters the truth makes perfect sense in the Republican world of Fox news, Rush Limbaugh etc who operate from the basic presumption that anyone who disagree's with them is wrong and evil.  It is really a sign of how that rabid wing of the Republican party has become so disproportionately powerful in the party that a fundamentally pragmatic guy like Romney, who clearly is not an accomplished liar, has to be willing to lie to hope to get elected.

The fiction of Impartial Judgement

There was a study (in Israel as I recall) a few years ago that looked at criminal judges and found that whether a criminal got a lenient sentence or harsh sentence correlated strongly with what time of day the accused appeared before the court.  Appearances early in the day had a much higher incidence of lenient sentences, the later in the day the accused got sentenced, the harsher the sentence.

Now comes a study that finds similar unconscious bias in college admissions.  The study looked at 9,323 admission interviews.  Admissions officers interviewed an average of 4.5 persons per day to assess background qualifications.  The study found that the interviewee's score predictably related to the score of  the prior interviewee.  On average if the score of the previous interviewee was .075% or more higher than the one before, then the score for the next interviewee would drop by an average of .075%.