Posted by serial catowner at 10/15/08 11:49 a.m.

I would say tat by now the "he said-she said" approach to journalism has produced a fairly mindless media of little value.

Let's face it- either people shared the earth with dinosaurs and the Second Coming is days away, or this nation is wasting $300 billion a year "fighting drugs" and preparing for the Big Showdown with a bunch of commies that don't even exist any more.

According to the media, however, the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and things-as-they-are won't ever change very much. This is how inevitable changes end up as big surprises.

That works for Uncle Harry, who always was an idiot. For the daily papers, challenged by the internet and hobbled by the task of delivering tons of newsprint throughout the region every day, not so much.

Good luck with all of that.

Posted by jmalkin at 10/15/08 11:57 a.m.

I wouldn't call it "pathetic journalism" -- more "worthless journalism."

Take yesterday, for instance. They seem to conclude that McCain won despite a new poll showing a huge lead for Obama because McCain released an economic plan while Obama was doing debate prep. Note that they didn't say he won because the plan was well-received, mind you. It's just that he released one.

And based on that he won the day? C'mon, that's just worthless. They don't call a winner every day, and yesterday was a perfect day to take a pass.

Posted by gdsah at 10/15/08 12:05 p.m.

I'm sick and tired of all the "pathetic journalism" I cancelled my paper! Now I come on the blog now and then to see if they are still up to the same ole crap! Yes, they are........

Posted by redmenace74 at 10/15/08 12:23 p.m.

What do you need to do to become a corporate journalist and work at the PI? Just quote directly from corporations like Boeing and politicians. That's all. No questions, no independent investigation, no talking to others. Just regurgitate, regurgitate, regurgitate. How serious can you take "journalism" that describes all protests in terms of how they affect your downtown commute?

Posted by Kubla Kant at 10/15/08 12:40 p.m.

If the media wanted to report on actual issues, then they'd have to spend more time and space on a single subject - why bother doing something with depth when you can just show the latest video clip or sound bite?

The current political coverage is so cheap and lazy you wouldn't think the election was for anything important.

Posted by sgt.hartman at 10/15/08 12:46 p.m.

Good question, Monica. I think covering "the game" is very important because - to me at least - a candidate's character is just as important as their stance on the issues and campaign tactics are a very indicative of character.

Posted by BenStatic at 10/15/08 1:24 p.m.

Well, the only exception to 'game' journalism is Bill Moyers.

I don't think the news should be heavily involved in the business of covering the candidates OR what the candidates said. There is too much of that already. So much so that the debates are predictable, and not very informative beyond what I already know about these guys.

What the media does NOT do at all - is investigate the policies, the issues. If you want to give us some good journalism (which in my argument you don't, and that is 100% becuase you have your sponsors to consider), you should cover an issue in-depth - something that isn't just about the last 24 hours, but something that took 1 or 2 weeks to put together to give us a thorough and exhaustive insight in to an issue.

I don't want to hear about Obamas life in excruciating detail. I want to hear about the depths of the health care crisis, what is wrong with it, who is worst off, what people are doing to fix it, what experts in and out of the industry think, how other countries handle health care...

I don't want to hear about McCains tax proposals, I want to hear about tax structures, who they benefit, who pays the majority of the taxes in this country, who pays the least, show me percentages, show me dollar amounts, give me an in depth understanding of the tax structure and who wins from the current structure if anybody. Show me how other countries have devised their tax structure - I hear in france they pay lots of taxes, but they also have decent jobs, decent homes, decent vacations - how is it all possible?

I want to hear about the climate on the ground in Iraq, in afghanistan, in pakistan - I want to hear what ordinary people there want. Do they want Americans to even be there? How can Americans help them? What kinds of things can our forces do better? What kinds of things should we do less of?

I want to know about what is going on with this bail-out. The media has done a great job covering this to an extent so far - its one of the more informative times I've ever seen in the mainstream press. But I want more, what is causing this crisis, are the lenders to blame, are the borrowers to blame? Who is going to benefit from this buyout?

THere are plenty of stories to cover, and they require much more research than the 24 hour news network "journalism" requires today. There has to be some deeper discussion on the news beyond the sensation. What is at the heart of an issue, who are the players, and how is this relevant to the election. Then we can really start to understand whose side these politicians are working for.

But the sad reality is that corporate America, the people Obama supposedly is running against, run the mainstream news networks, and will never show us the in-depth understanding we need to make good judgements about these candidates. They have an interest in keeping us ignorant so they can cycle in a new guy to further the corporate agenda.

This is why PBS and Bill Moyers are so important, is that government pays for at least some of their funding (though they should pay for nearly all now that the government owns freddie mac and fannie mae.) We don't get government or socialist news, we get in depth discussions about the news, not just sound bytes and "gotchas" (oooh - I am with Palin on this one! But I have a feeling Palin would not benefit from this type of press.)

Posted by unregistered user at 10/15/08 1:31 p.m.

The ironic thing:

Politico's feature is actually a hundred times better at actually looking at the campaigns than pretty much any "traditional" news outlet.

The signal-to-noise ration is horrible and getting worse as everyone feels pressure to hire people from both sides to honk the party line. You'd think they'd have learned from the glorious failure that was "Hardball," but what we have now is "Hardball" times 100.

At least Politico tries to be an impartial referee in this game.

Posted by JasonP107 at 10/15/08 4:44 p.m.

I'm actually more or less in agreement with Dan Gillmor on this one - I hate the use of war and sport terminology in election coverage, and the idea than one candidate or another "wins" on any given day is ridiculous, and the fact that it's a feature on politico makes me mad.

I do know, however, that I'm in the vast minority of the American Public, because I also don't like reality TV, celebrity news, or NASCAR.

Posted by godsflunky47 at 10/16/08 7:53 a.m.

NPR has, as far as I know, a fairly unique approach: five to ten minutes at the top of the hour for a quick rundown on the day's events, and then the rest of the hour on more in-depth stories. I sometimes question their coverage -- they have a tendency to grab some "experts," sometimes even just one, have them say some stuff, get a react soundbite, and then call it done. But other times they're quite impressive. They ran a series on "How Wars End" last week which amazed me.

Posted by jclaytonshaw at 10/16/08 11:53 a.m.

Many reporters who cover national elections insist that it is a game and dismiss that something more substantial might be needed of them. Their editors at the big papers must agree with them because it all we get.

At this point, it seems that the national political reportersand editors at our major newspapers, networks and news cable don't have the collective brains of a donut, let alone any sense of national need or interest.

My sense is that they don't know how to do substantial reporting so they fall back on what is easy -- the game, the fight.

And that really is easy to do.

My guess is we need new editors and then maybe they can hire reporters who actually like to report rather than have their stories handed to them by the campaigns.

I think "pathetic" is pretty accurate.

Jshaw