American Press On Suicide Watch-By FRANK RICH-It Started 3 Yrs Ago With COLBERT's Monologue

Op-Ed Columnist
The American Press on Suicide Watch

By FRANK RICH
Published: May 9, 2009

IF you wanted to pick the moment when the American news business went on suicide watch, it was almost exactly three years ago. That’s when Stephen Colbert, appearing at the annual White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, delivered a monologue accusing his hosts of being stenographers who had, in essence, let the Bush White House get away with murder (or at least the war in Iraq). To prove the point, the partying journalists in the Washington Hilton ballroom could be seen (courtesy of C-Span) fawning over government potentates — in some cases the very “sources” who had fed all those fictional sightings of Saddam Hussein’s W.M.D.

Colbert’s routine did not kill. The Washington Post reported that it “fell flat.” The Times initially did not even mention it. But to the Beltway’s bafflement, Colbert’s riff went viral overnight, ultimately to have a marathon run as the most popular video on iTunes. The cultural disconnect between the journalism establishment and the public it aspires to serve could not have been more vividly dramatized.

The bad news about the news business has accelerated ever since. Newspaper circulations and revenues are in free fall. Legendary brands from The Los Angeles Times to The Philadelphia Inquirer are teetering. The New York Times Company threatened to close The Boston Globe if its employees didn’t make substantial sacrifices in salaries and benefits. Other papers have died. The reporting ranks on network and local news alike are shriveling. You know it’s bad when the Senate is moved, as it was last week, to weigh in with hearings on “The Future of Journalism.”

Not all is bleak on the Titanic, however. The White House correspondents’ bacchanal was on tap for this weekend. And this time no one could accuse the revelers of failing to get down with the Colbert-iTunes-Facebook young folk: hip big-time journalists now stroke their fans with 140-character messages on Twitter. Or did. No sooner did boldface Washington media personalities ostentatiously embrace Twitter than Nielsen reported that more than 60 percent of Twitter users abandon it after a single month.

more:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/10/opinion/10rich.html?_r=2

The whole world saw them called naked.

Maybe the people in the parade with the emperor didn't see it, but all the people watching the parade recognized that the emperor was naked.

I sat in amazement last night and listened to the "analyst" on msnbc discuss the WHCD. They few times they mentioned Colbert's performance, they only spoke about how "inappropriate" he was in attacking bush*--never even acknowledging how they (the media) were exposed for their complicity and negligence. Reminded me of the bat-shit crazy winger debating Randi Rhodes who stuck her fingers in her ears because the truth was coming her way and it hurt.

:)

It did cause the audience to behave as if they'd been hit by a cattle prod on full stun, but it certainly didn't fall flat. It wounded gravely, without "killing."

What fell flat after that performance was people's acceptance of the MSM's "opinions" about how things are perceived!

Love this observation of Rich's: No sooner did boldface Washington media personalities ostentatiously embrace Twitter than Nielsen reported that more than 60 percent of Twitter users abandon it after a single month.

CSPAN ran a Twitter board next to their streaming window last night and it was pathetic, porn spam drowning out comments on what was going on, not that many comments were worth the pixels.

As far as wounding the press, Stewart was the first although Colbert was more public. Both of them called the sonorous fonfers on both bogus "sides" as essentially empty suits playing pre recorded talking points past each other and hurting the country in the process.

The only mystery to me is why any of those silly gits sitting in air conditioned comfort waiting for press releases, AP stories and phone calls to parade as "news" still has a job.

It's certainly no mystery to me why people are tuning out, dropping the subscription, and turning the channel to other twaddle. You can lie to the people for only so long before they begin to resent it and abandon you.

It was about as ironic a reaction by the MSM as could be expected.

I think he predicted their response and factored it into his act in its entirety. Street theater, where the audience has a role in the performance. And it's still going on! :)

... is thin to non-existent with these people. They live in some isolated echo chamber, perpetuating a shared delusion.

One of my favorite Escher's, thanks!

that we all dig up and post here on DU ...like a cat that catches a mouse and leaves it on your door step as a gift and evidence of his work.

No offense meant to Ceiling Cat

The industry isn't mature yet, but they'll find a way to make a living. The ones who only kiss ass, repeat talking points and regurgitate from the news wire won't make the cut.

As for the newspapers, well, it's like lamenting the death of the buggy-whip industry.

But the www has a lot of readers so who knows, perhaps if we all chip in they will be able to afford to do the jobs they love. They probably won't get rich but I think most people are realizing being rich has been way over-valued.

to wherever the news is happening, hotels etc.

And to say "they'll find a way to make a living" isn't really acknowledging that reporting news involves an fairly large investment of money and resources.

He says, "The real question is for the public, not journalists: Does it want to pony up for news, whatever the media that prevail? It’s all a matter of priorities. Not long ago, we laughed at the idea of pay TV. Free television was considered an inalienable American right (as long as it was paid for by advertisers). Then cable and satellite became the national standard."

What Rich isn't getting is that news is information -- not entertainment. It doesn't depend on special effects or surround sound. If all the major tv and print news media suddenly followed the Wall Street Journal and went print-only, there would still be people who'd instantly copy stories onto blogs and message boards. There'd be people who would more legitimately post brief quotes and summaries at places like DU. And the Net being what it is, within an hour the stories would be everywhere -- which isn't much inducement for the public in general to pay for the originals.

That's not even mentioning all the local newspapers and such that pay for wire service stories and freely post them online. For Rich's idea to work would mean placing a kind of lockdown on *all* news sources, from the New York Times down to the Podunk Gazette, and establishing an RIAA-style crusade to track down, fine, and even jail illegal reprinters. Oh -- and you'd also have to keep Americans from accessing any foreign news sources. Lots of luck with that.

Rich's basic error is that once a story is online in *any* form, it's too late to stop it from getting out -- and thus too late to try to force readers to pay for it. On the other hand, it's also clear that advertising is no longer going to be able to subsidize the news the way it once did -- and government subsidies are also a non-starter.

I feel really stupid saying this, but the most plausible answer I can see is for news gathering to become even *more* politicized and partisan than it has been. One thing we know people are willing to pay for is to get their own political positions more widely disseminated. So what the hell -- why not go all the way and have the 527's and think-tanks do the heavy lifting? Add in an array of bloggers with well-honed skills at detecting bullshit and propaganda to act as middlemen. And then turn the whole thing loose on the Net and let the chips fall as they may.

Traditional reporters who have been raised on a credo of objectivity won't approve of it -- but it's not as if most of them have ever really been objective themselves. And it might actually be the best long-term solution.

...But the "turn the whole thing loose on the net and let the chips fall as they may" bit worries me. Factual reporting doesn't work on consensus; truth can't be voted upon. I'd be concerned the partisan model would let too many believe as they choose. There's enough of that as it stands, IMO.

Which is why I said I felt stupid suggesting it.

But when I try to come at the problem in terms of revenue streams, it's all I can think of. Micropayments haven't yet managed to offer a viable business model. Between Craigslist, globalization of the media, and the collapse of consumer capitalism, advertising is never going to be what it was in the glory days of the 20th century. And the appeal that newspapers offered when they were first invented -- to get the jump on all your friends with the latest scivvy -- is laughable in a situation when the really hot stuff goes viral within minutes.

Really, newspapers are only left with two necessary but unglamorous functions. One is routine coverage of day-to-day events. The other is investigating the untold stories behind events. And there just isn't the money and interest out there to make those two functions self-sustaining on a regular basis.

So what other alternatives are there?

...and specialization. Newspapers that only do local, and do it better than anyone else. Or only do a particular specialized field.

If the internet has one lesson, it's that somewhere there are groups of people, often small groups, who are extremely into everything. Tap that properly -- and figure out micropayments that don't bog down in fees. In a lot of ways, it's not a newspaper problem, it's a banking problem. How can you effectively collect tiny sums from lots of people? Smaller than eBay-type numbers, I'm talking the 5-cents-per type.

It has to be a subscriber-based model, because you're right, ad revenue is going the way of the dodo. :)

Even for a DU thread, I might check 20 news sources before I find the one particular fact I know I saw somewhere. I'm not going to spend a dollar every time I want to come up with a single piece of six month old information.

And what you say about communities of interest is true but only really applies to fans who might be willing to to pay for one or two sites that reliably provide the latest information on their particular obsession. I can't see it applying to general-interest news sites.

The real question I see is how ordinary people trying to be well-informed citizens will be able to keep up with current events without hitting a wall of either subscriptions or micro-payments that would make them decide it isn't worth it.

That seems like an insurmountable barrier to me -- which is why I keep coming back to the idea that third parties are going to have to be the ones paying. For example, the newspapers might become more like wire services, supplying news stories to paying customers who have their own uses for them.

Also, it's not as though advertisers haven't frequently influenced or outright censored the way news has been reported in the past, even by such icons as the Times. We may just have to get used to a different set of filters.

"No offense meant to Ceiling Cat"

:rofl:

His speech from 2006 was one of the greatest acts of PATRIOTIC COURAGE I ever saw during those dark ages of the Bush years.

Forcibly stripping off the Emperor's new clothes when the man-child-sociopath is sitting six feet away from you is nothing short of Congressional Medal of Honor heroism!

Stephen was a laser beacon of light back in those abysmal years of unchecked fascism!

-90% jimmy

:thumbsup:

:thumbsup:

It's one thing to huff and puff and say: "I'm gonna tell the president off to his face when I get the chance!" It is quite another to actually go ahead and do a scathing, truthful takedown in a room full of intimidating people.

It was like those puffed up Masters of the Universe were finally forced to listen to our voice.

Once again, bravo, Stephen.

we will not see its like soon.

All I got to say is WOW!

Colbert deserves the Kennedy profiles in courage award for that event.

They certainly gasped over Colbert's performance, and as Stephen said he was run out of town on a rail.

Then you have David Gregory being a "Go Go Dancer" with MC Rove. Who could ever take him seriously ever again!

As far as newspapers going out of business, apparently Politico is doing just fine. They are not a newspaper, yet they are always getting interviews and used as a source for many people.

:kick:

I remember the days after that one - wow - it's all people could talk about. How Colbert basically told everyone the emperor has no clothes. It was awesome - still is - see it if you haven't people!

Stephen Colbert - Speech at the White House Correspondent's Dinner in 2006. - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qa-4E8ZDj9s

I will never forget watching that, live on C-SPAN, and being amazed. "OMG...he's actually saying these things...and no one has grabbed him and forcibly dragged him away from the podium and tossed him out of the room..."

Yes, the silence from most of the room was deafening, but it was because just about everyone in the room was either a) furious or b) in shock that he was saying what he was saying and getting away with it.

the suicide watch began during the 2000 campaign when Rich and others like him helped decieve the American public into thinking Al Gore was a compulsive liar while George W Bush was a compassionate, harmless, good ol boy who you'd love to have a beer with.


It started then and continued during the run up to the Iraq War. Rich and his paper were also complicit then.

:thumbsup:

Instead of giving Al Gore credit for his outstanding contributions to the nation, they trashed him, and virtually none called the others on their slander and libel.

That institutional failure on behalf of the so called "fourth estate" in reporting reality to the American People with at least some degree of integrity, so the people could make an informed, intelligent decision regarding choosing the leadership for the most powerful and influential job on the planet, was the so called "free press" killing the predominant reason for it's very existence. They essentially killed their own goose for the Golden Eggs.

Camouflaging corrupt, incompetence and enabling it to the Presidency while simultaneously demeaning the critical importance of this preeminent job all for their own self serving agenda could only lead to 9/11, Iraq, the abandonment of the victims from Katrina, illegal wiretapping of the American People, the promotion of torture, shredding of the Constitution, etc. etc.

Wasn't Gorbachev envious of Ronnie Raygun's propaganda program in the United States? And this was when Russia was still the Soviet Union.

a far more reliable international news source.

The difference is that AT LEAST THE RUSSIAN PEOPLE KNEW PRAVDA WAS BULLSHIT. (I learned this from someone who was within the Iron Curtain when they were young)

Americans, on the other hand, still believe the MSM.

Although I think America is starting to catch on to the fact that our MSM is corporate company store bullshit.

-90% Jimmy

In that case, the suicide watch began with media complicity in
Reagan's election/hostage release/inauguration/"MorningInAmerica/Iran/Contra/Big Lie/Era
during which media consolildation gobbled up all and every media and turned citizens into trained consumer zombies.

:hi:

nothing has ever convinced me otherwise since then.

and here we are Down the Rabbit Hole :hi:

Frank Rich doesn't do much for me either.

Don

J Stewart and Colbert, and those behind their respective shows, will go down in history as having done what they could to fill the void, and offer balance to the propaganda that passes for our national "news." However, I'd hope people will look back and connect the dots that reveal that in doing so they helped provide the impetus for real change within the broader framework of healthy democracy and a functioning media - that has been absent in this country since I was a kid.

This was the most disgusting thing any POTUS ever did. Imagine lying us into war about Iraqi WMDs and then making mockery of the fact he didn't find WMDs. How many people are now dead? Almost 5,000 American troops and over a million Iraqis? And how the DC press corps, who assisted Bush/Cheney with their "wargasm," roared with laughter when they saw this.

I've mention to friends when the subject of Bush's schtick comes up, that every self-respecting journalist got up and walked out of the dinner in disgust when this was shown. They then say they don't recall anyone getting up and walking out. I say, "Yeah, like I said, every self-respecting journalist..."

Every year brings greater overlap between the rich old white men who employ journalists and the rich old white men who start illegal wars for fun and profit.

It began a lot longer than three years ago, of course, but Colbert did identify the problem.

Chomsky/Herman began focusing on this in the mid 80s w/their book Manufacturing Consent