C-3 P.O.'d

Matt Welch | January 21, 2005

Supporting my pet theory that political media criticism often begins as insight but ends as farce, Tim Graham is arguing that the Armstrong Williams debacle is a "C-3 story" that "ended up on A-1."

I can just picture a new cable teevee show, called The Terrifying Tims, where Graham and Karr face off on either side of Russert, and argue passionately about article placement, while a nation of hundreds watches. "That was totally an A-13 story!!" "You can't see the forest for the D-3s!!", etc.

Comments

|1.21.05 @ 12:41PM|#

what's a little paid scriptwriting amongst friends, after all?

|1.21.05 @ 12:47PM|#

Welch, funny idea re: the show....however if you think for even a brief second that an ideologically homogeneous Washington Press Corps didn't magnify the Williams story to mitigate analysis of the Rathergate wreckage, then you're daft!

And I'm kidding about the "daft" charge, lest you pull a Jesse Walker and demand evidence from past Reason articles that you are, in fact, daft.

Matt Welch|1.21.05 @ 12:57PM|#

Snake -- Living 3,000 miles away, I don't know anything about the Washington Press Corps. But at the risk of taking you literally, I really doubt that A) "Rathergate" is front and center on their minds (or something they feel compelled to be defensive about), or B) had much of anything to do with the Armstrong Williams story-placement. Catching TV personalities red-handed is *always* good newspaper fun; print journalists don't generally like their TV bretheren, especially the ones who rake in the bucks.

My guess (and it's just a guess), is that the Rather fiasco was not as traumatic for the press as Rather's critics think it was. But I could just be projecting.

Jesse Walker|1.21.05 @ 1:11PM|#

Earth to Snake: I understood that your religion comment was meant to be an exaggeration for comic effect. Problem is, in order for a comic effect to work, you have to be exaggerating something that actually exists in the first place.

|1.21.05 @ 1:15PM|#

Matt,

Seriously, you just linked to this article so you could use a cool pun for a post title, right? I mean, Graham isn't showing any insight -- he's just jumping straight to farce...

Anon

|1.21.05 @ 1:23PM|#

In general, Welch, you know a lot about the DC Press Corps. Most stories with "legs" in the MSM are created by the NYT or WaPo Washington correspondents. Then, the broadcast networks and finally the 80 other major papers in the US pick up the same story. For example, the "US is too stingy with tsunami relief" was an element of an NYT story, then an editorial, then voila...a national story with legs requiring 2 former presidents to crush it.

You are indifferent to my claim and cite print v. electronic rivalries/grudges. Point taken, but the TANG "story" involves not only CBS but also the Kerry campaign. I believe journalists in all channels want to preserve the "under the radar" option of contacting, discussing and even coordinating stories with a political campaign.

Matt Welch|1.21.05 @ 1:23PM|#

Anon -- The pun-generating center of my brain is so weak that I was actually playing around with R2D2 before realizing that Mr. Graham had gave me such a nicely wrapped gift....

I just thought the specificity of his complaint was comical.

Matt Welch|1.21.05 @ 1:37PM|#

"had gave," "had given," whatever.

Snake -- Truly, in general I *don't* know much about the DC press corps. And I think you are over-generalizing. For example, the Armstrong Williams story "has legs," and it was created by USA Today. Rather's memo story had strong legs, but certainly not because of anything the New York Times did.

I agree that the NYT has and to some degree continues to, set some of the agenda for national coverage (which is one of the reasons I have previously argued that the New York Times scandals were good for journalism). But I just don't share your omniscience about the motives of reporters and editors. It's not "indifference" on my part, it's lack of confidence in my soothsaying abilities, and a reticence about making absolutist generalizations.

For instance, you say "I believe journalists in all channels want to preserve the 'under the radar' option of contacting, discussing and even coordinating stories with a political campaign." Well, I work in FOUR channels -- magazine, newspaper, website, and the odd radio appearance -- and I've never wanted to "preserve" anything like what you're talking about, and in fact of all the journalists I've ever known well, I can say that this "'under the radar' option" has never even existed for them.

|1.21.05 @ 1:43PM|#

"the TANG "story" involves not only CBS but also the Kerry campaign."

Which is really odd, since the issue of Bush's absence from his military duties first hit the media in 1999.

Once you "know" that everything printed that reflects badly on Republicans is part of a sinister plot, it's just a matter of connecting the dots.

Tim Cavanaugh|1.21.05 @ 1:48PM|#

Welch pitches a show called The Terrifying Tims and doesn't even come up with a spot in it for me?

|1.21.05 @ 1:54PM|#

A thousand pardons for my "absolutist generalizations."

And thanks, Welch, you're another data point supporting a post TANG "story" hypothesis that CBS specifically maintains contacts with the Democratic party with the express purpose of advancing a political candidate/agenda.

The above is the best reason I can think of as to why CBS has not tried to out/burn/persecute/discredit the sources who made them look so foolish. (Or even find out where the docs came from?) Why else would Rather and Mapes still stand behind the "content" of the story, and CBS continues to tread water on a further investigation?

I suspect your point to be that in an increasingly fractured news environment, widespread collusion/coordination on a story is difficult. If true, this is a good thing.

|1.21.05 @ 1:58PM|#

"The above is the best reason I can think of as to why CBS has not tried to out/burn/persecute/discredit the sources who made them look so foolish."

I would have thought that the inability to locate an non-existant woman would be a pretty good reason, but you're never going to get an X Files plot out of that.

Matt Welch|1.21.05 @ 2:01PM|#

My dream of becoming "another data point supporting a post TANG 'story' hypothesis" has finally come true!

And my own thousand pardons to Cavanaugh, who clearly should be prancing around the Terrifying Tims set in a joker's costume, chanting in falsetto "Who's a tart? Who's a tart?"

|1.21.05 @ 2:22PM|#

You actually believe that nonexistent woman stuff, Joe?
Well on second thought, yes, you would.

How about the existent phone call between Mapes and Lockhart? Set aside that perhaps he was schlonging her, how many total phone calls would you guess Mapes and Lockhart had in 2004?

I've never seen Cavanuagh, but your scenario reminds me of the Chinese guy in Alfred Molina's house lighting firecrackers in "Boogie NIghts."

"Ricky Springfield is a BUDDY OF MINE!!!"
**POW!!!!**

|1.21.05 @ 2:49PM|#

"You actually believe that nonexistent woman stuff, Joe?"

Yeah, I think somebody set that former TANG officer up. It doesn't make any sense that he'd burn his credibility like that - he is a longtime political activist who clearly wants to be taken seriously.

DaveInBigD|1.21.05 @ 5:01PM|#

When I saw this headline I just assumed that the Xtian Right had just outed C3PO as a Spongebob-esque homosexual insurgent.

|1.21.05 @ 6:50PM|#

Please do not disparage non-existent women. I'm currently in a relationship with a non-existent woman, and I have have many such relationships with non-existent women over the years.

In fact, I'm half non-existent myself.

To imply that a non-existent woman is any less capable of veracity than existent women is pure existentism of the vilest sort.

|1.21.05 @ 9:56PM|#

Hear, hear, Steve! And I'm not saying that just because I'm dating one of your ex's. BTW, she sends her non-existant love. ;-)

|1.22.05 @ 11:47PM|#

Oh gosh--Stevo's being cyber-stalked by a non-existent woman who came out of thin air and suddenly disappeared.

I should be so lucky. I've got a real cyber-stalker or two--damn flying monkeys find me every time!

|1.23.05 @ 6:32AM|#

This is a goofy question, but...flying monkeys?

I only ask because there's a girl I know (she's a freshman in high school, and I in college, which makes this a bit odd), who I often feel is stalking me, and she periodically says something like "the flying monkeys will get you." Is there some univeral application of this term?

|1.23.05 @ 10:59AM|#

It's a Wizard of Oz reference...