"Go on, tell me you could do worse"

Matt Welch | September 14, 2005

What does Katrina tell us about the virtues or demerits of limited government? Colby Cosh has one of the best preambles to an answer I've seen.

Also worth a read is Cosh's cranky take on the new Anderson Cooper world we seem to be living in. Excerpt:

I have yet to hear any American but Michael Kinsley express the slightest misgiving about the new, cynically "angry" on-air reporter; the splutterings of Anderson Cooper and the sneers of Soledad O'Brien were met with absolutely universal approval. That these reactions were "justified" has nothing to do with the fact that, in context, they represent sheer savagery. I have a list of about fifty people I would love to sit down in front of a DVD of Broadcast News. Would they even know it was a comedy? Would they think William Hurt's character was the "hero"?

Comments

|9.14.05 @ 6:05PM|#

I don't think that reporters who let on to their bias by being angry or cynical on air should be denigrated.

Far from it, they should be elevated. Journalistic neutrality is nothing more than a mid-to-late twentieth century affectation.

And one we're better off without.

|9.14.05 @ 6:26PM|#

I have to agree with Mediageek here. And, Matt Welch, from a fan of HST, im slightly surprised at your postion here. Didnt he say the pretense of objetivity was the problem?

Step back for a minute and ask yourself if Mary Landrieu should have been allowed to run off at the mouth unchecked fellating all the Ex-prez's and other bureaucratic muckety-mucks.

I think the more interesting question is why have they chosen now to 'go native' as Wonkette aptly notes?

|9.14.05 @ 6:39PM|#

I have to agree with the above posters.
This whole concept of "objectivity" in nonsense. The press was supposed to exist as a check on the power of government. How are journalists supposed to "afflict the powerful" if all they are expected to do is act like a neutral party whose sole purpose is to transcribe / repeat whatever their subject is saying.

|9.14.05 @ 6:51PM|#

Journalists are simply higher paid and better looking stenographers.

|9.14.05 @ 6:53PM|#

I think my favorite splutterings came from some houseplant named Nancy Grace, who apparently has a show on CNN. Last Friday she was interviewing Anderson Cooper (yup, "journalists" interviewing "journalists",... or I assume that's what they list as their professions on their tax returns), when the subject of those preloaded debit cards came up. Grace expressed outrage that FEMA had run out of them ("FEMA! I knew it!") and wondered how FEMA could run out of these debit cards, since debit cards arrive at her house from banks every day.

I wish banks would send me debit cards preloaded with $2000.

Shannon Love|9.14.05 @ 6:57PM|#

Wow, the things I miss by not having cable.

Shannon Love|9.14.05 @ 7:01PM|#

I think a rule by Walmart and Salvation Army would work well but I might suggest a leavening of Apple Computer to give the whole enterprise some style.

|9.14.05 @ 7:25PM|#

I'm all for sneering and sputting reporters if we can also have the flipside, which is annoyed and offended interviewees telling the reporters to fuck off and socking them in the eye.

Matt Welch|9.14.05 @ 7:32PM|#

I didn't say I agreed with Mr. Cosh, just that it was "cranky" and "worth a read."

FWIW, I was rather moved by some of the early teevee coverage and cranky cross-examinations of guvmint officials, though I certainly wasn't watching it 24/7. I liked Sheppy Smith barking at the folks back in the studio, but the transcript of him yapping at the cop seemed questionable, and Geraldo's baby-snatching was grody. Now it seems people like Cooper (who I generally like, though maybe that's just the man-crush) have OD'd on their newfound Importance, and are trying to inject Emotion into everything. Rita Cosby's long commercial for Scientology was pretty horrid to watch.

Whatever; I appreciate their courage, don't really give two shekels about Objectivity, but nonetheless wish there were more maps, more verification, and whatnot. And I loved Broadcast News.

|9.14.05 @ 7:55PM|#

Nancy Grace is always good for outrage.
What was this "long commercial for Scientology?"

Matt Welch|9.14.05 @ 8:02PM|#

She just did like a 5- or 10-minute puff piece on all the "courageous nonprofits down here," showing only people wearing huge "SCIENTOLOGY RESCUE MISSION" T-shirts, including the gruesome Kirstie Alley, then showed them doing weird massage-like things to guardsmen, then flashed their phone number on the TV, congratulating them for their heroic work.

|9.14.05 @ 8:04PM|#

"That these reactions were "justified" has nothing to do with the fact that, in context, they represent sheer savagery"

Savagery? What kind of mega-pussy is Colby Cosh, anyway, if he thinks an uppity Soledad OBrien is 'savagery'.

It was nice to see the media take the oppositional stance they *ought* to have, instead of treating government officials as celebrities to be pampered.

I prefer the kind of questioning you hear on the BBC. They're not perfect, but the interviewers seem to be more interested in getting answers to questions, rather than just providing the guest with opportunities to spout talking points.

|9.14.05 @ 8:05PM|#

I wonder if, while at Fox News, Rita was converted to Scientology by Greta van Susteren.

|9.14.05 @ 8:26PM|#

"Nancy Grace is always good for outrage."

And beating off to.

BTW, does anyone else in here think Anderson Cooper dyes his hair all the way grey?

|9.14.05 @ 8:27PM|#

"Nancy Grace is always good for outrage."

And beating off to.

BTW, does anyone else in here think Anderson Cooper dyes his hair all the way grey?

|9.14.05 @ 8:50PM|#

"I think a rule by Walmart and Salvation Army would work well but I might suggest a leavening of Apple Computer to give the whole enterprise some style. "

Shannon Love,
Those are "comfort" organizations like mashed potatoes and gravy are comfort foods, but, as an anarchist, I can't cotton to any organizations.
I do agree with Colby Cosh, that the latest bad news has been philisophical good news for anarchist dogs and their fleas here on H&R.

|9.14.05 @ 9:02PM|#

I can't take Anderson Cooper seriously. I mean, he used to host "Channel 1."

Rita Cosby rubs me the wrong way, too. Her voice makes her sound like she's always on the verge of bursting out in tears.

Even when she was busily doing the tv nooze equivalent of fellating a bunch of US Marshalls.

|9.14.05 @ 9:17PM|#

I love it, you dip-wads actually watch TV "news", then debate the emotional quotients of the talking heads. Now, what does that have to do with accurate reportage?

"Well, since absolute accuracy is impossible, we should embrace inaccuracy so we can be true to ourselves."

H&R fleas, indeed. A parody would be considered demure.

|9.14.05 @ 9:22PM|#

No, douchewit, it's more a matter of the fact that unbiased reporting is an impossibility, so the media may as well drop the idiotic and detrimentally misleading dogma.

Historically speaking, "unbiased" news is a recent phenomenon, and one that both placates and condescends to the viewer at the same time.

At least with partisan news you know what the spin on it is going to be ahead of time.

|9.14.05 @ 9:24PM|#

Horst,

That was great,...yeah,...huh,...what was I saying again....

The Wine Commonsewer|9.14.05 @ 10:39PM|#

The Katrina 6 triumph of government Cosh blog post was superb. I LOL and loved it.

Objectivity or lack thereof is okay. What pisses people off, particularly ME, is the pretense of objectivity that many, if not most, journalists and media outlets wear like a comfy old wool sweater. The sweater is holey and moth eaten but they don't seem to notice. If you hand over a box of mothballs, immediate offense is taken, the eyeballs roll and then peer down the nose at you. You are pronounced a cretin and then dismissed out of hand.

|9.14.05 @ 10:45PM|#

Why is objectivity in journalism a bad thing? Sure, true objectivity is an unattainable ideal, but does that mean it shouldn't be the goal? I'd like the media to at least try to get me the unvarnished truth. If they don't do that, then where do I go for the facts?

Of course, I, too, am sickened by the pretense of "neutrality"--especially when it's so clearly a facade. Whether I'm watching some CNN reporter skew the truth or listening to some left or right-wing shill on the radio, I'm friggin' tired of the crap. I'm not interested in a journalist's political stance, his emotions, or his hair. I just want SOMEPLACE where I can get something mildly akin to the truth. Perhaps even slightly digested before I get it, so I can avoid all of the nonsense that comes with trying to analyze events as they happen (Katrina coverage was and is a complete joke). I can go to the Internet for my conspiracy theories and random, unverifiable data, thank you very much.

The BBC would like to apologize for the preceding rant. Those responsible have been sacked.

Dave W.|9.14.05 @ 11:15PM|#

the 49% of Americans who have been complaining for five years about George W. Bush being a dictator are now vexed to the point of utter incoherence because for the last fortnight he has failed to do a sufficiently convincing impression of a dictator.

I don't think it is unusual or bad to wish that George W. Bush had acted like a dictator *only* with respect to Katrina. Mr. Cosh's phrasing makes it sound like this is some kind of anomaly.

|9.14.05 @ 11:31PM|#

I watched Janet Reno and the FBI burn a bunch of crazy but mostly harmless adults and innocent children to death in Waco and I never once saw a reporter get angry about it or talk about it with anything other than clinical coldness. I suppose I wouldn't mind them getting angry if they would stop pretending that their anger has anything to do with the hurricane or the suffering related to it and just admit that it is the result of their political beliefs and hatred of the Republican Party. Its a free country, they can get mad about anything they want and push whatever agenda they want, I just wish they would be honest about it.

|9.14.05 @ 11:47PM|#

Why is objectivity in journalism a bad thing?Sure, true objectivity is an unattainable ideal, but does that mean it shouldn't be the goal?

Because it placates the viewer. It fosters the notion that there's no need to question or view the news story with a critical mind.

|9.14.05 @ 11:58PM|#

Media-Dweeb sayz: "No, douchewit, it's more a matter of the fact that unbiased reporting is an impossibility, so the media may as well drop the idiotic and detrimentally misleading dogma."

You need to give me a no drinking warning when you post... it is very hard to get my half-caf soy carob-mocha latte out of the key-board.

Your emotional outburst is quite satisfying, as it makes my point in a much more clever manner, bravo.

Dweeb continues:"Historically speaking, "unbiased" news is a recent phenomenon, and one that both placates and condescends to the viewer at the same time."

Nice try, but I'm not sure what world you reside. You condescend to the viewer believing that they are universally placated. But I digress. I am still mistified why you care what blo-dried, air-head morons repeat emotive nostrums fed to them thru ear-pieces from ugly "producers".

Media Moron continues:"... with partisan news you know what the spin on it is going to be ahead of time."

It's all spin all the time now... so your point is?? I'll, tell you: you are a dip-shit who consumes and evaluates Tee-Vee info-tainment and has some pot-smoker pipe-dream that the euro-trash model will increase the honesty and utility of tv "news".

|9.15.05 @ 12:14AM|#

Pro Libertate Sayz: "Why is objectivity in journalism a bad thing? Sure, true objectivity is an unattainable ideal, but does that mean it shouldn't be the goal? I'd like the media to at least try to get me the unvarnished truth. If they don't do that, then where do I go for the facts?"

Objectivity is not the issue, accuracy is. Also, the fact that there is some expectation from TV reporters is laughable. Kill your TV if you want to grow, otherwise you will turn into a mediageek and actually care what soledad obrien emotes.

|9.15.05 @ 12:31AM|#

On link one:

While I am sympathetic of this preamble, I am wary of arguments that lend themselves too easily to letting various officials off the hook. After all, if you pretty much expect the government to necessarily fail in these situations, you can't really assign too much responsibility (or, as it is apparently known these days, "blame") to the individuals who just happened to occupy the roles of, say, "Mayor," "Governor," or "President". These people would just be placeholders.

Now I'm pretty forgiving -- if your screed contains incorporates some institutional history, I'll give it a shot. But to immediately jump to arguments about Government before going through arguments about this particular administration, or the past few administrations, just seems like poor historical practice to me.

A much more fruitful debate would focus on what federal disaster aid should and shouldn't look like. Kerry Howley's piece and the Witold Rybczynski mentioned therein are case in point.

May I also suggest that maybe the feds starting looking into stable communications networks. So they can call each other and stuff. Just sayin.

On link two:

Eh. I mostly agree with the criticisms above, particularly about the inapposite use of the word "savagery."

Anon

|9.15.05 @ 12:46AM|#

Horst, you work in tv, don't you?

|9.15.05 @ 2:16AM|#

ur just jealous cuz wonkette wants to molest him haha.

|9.15.05 @ 8:32AM|#

"This whole concept of "objectivity" is nonsense. The press was supposed to exist as a check on the power of government. How are journalists supposed to "afflict the powerful" if all they are expected to do is act like a neutral party whose sole purpose is to transcribe / repeat whatever their subject is saying." --ChicagoTom

Well, one can be objective without being a puppet. Roughly speaking, to be objective is merely to attempt to find out what is true without your own wishes getting in the way. If a public figure makes a claim, it is not "nonobjective" or "biased" to submit that claim to scrutiny. Thus neutrality with respect to the facts is not the same thing as objectivity with respect to the facts, and neither is the same thing as what we see dominating the reporting of news on television: laziness. It is much easier to simply present what was said or what poll results say about what was said than it is to go and find out whether or not what was said is true or whether those polled are full of it or not. And so when Horst makes the claim (above) that "objectivity is not the issue, accuracy is" he is on the right track, but perhaps slightly off in his wording--accuracy is part of objectivity, and it's the part we should focus on.

"Journalistic neutrality is nothing more than a mid-to-late twentieth century affectation.

And one we're better off without." --Mediageek

"Historically speaking, "unbiased" news is a recent phenomenon, and one that both placates and condescends to the viewer at the same time."
--Mediageek

Well, the polio vaccine is a recent innovation as well. So I guess an idea's youth is irrelevant to its worth. One requires more. Mediageek's "more" is his claim about condescension and placation, but it seems to me that the "condescension and placation" argument can also be made of partisan news reporting: after all, partisan news reporting uses the viewer/reader as a pawn to propagate a political agenda, assumes or hopes that the viewer/reader will not or cannot critically evaluate the spin, and is typically cast in a context that encourages the viewer/reader to acquire information from only one source. Sounds like the condescension and placation contest is a push.

"No, douchewit, it's more a matter of the fact that unbiased reporting is an impossibility, so the media may as well drop the idiotic and detrimentally misleading dogma." --Mediageek

Well, it may be that "unbiased" reporting is strictly speaking an impossibility, but the degree and nature of that bias varies, and some biases may be worse (more likely to deflect the mind from the truth) than other biases. It is probably, on balance, a good thing that our media world is populated with a mix of media outlets with varying attitudes with respect to the notion of objectivity. A reasonable person can make a case that the goal of objectivity is a good one and also believe that it is probably best to acquire information from a variety of sources. No one can completely rid one's self of bias, but the person who on occasion attempts to examine assumptions will have fewer biases, and the reporter who does this will likely be a better reporter (i.e. more likely to report truth) than one who doesn't bother. In that sense, objectivity has a place in the world.

Ta!

|9.15.05 @ 8:53AM|#

replace the three branches of republican government with permanent joint rule by Wal-Mart and the Salvation Army. Go on, tell me you could honestly do worse.

I could do better, and I could do worse. Better: replace the Salivation Army with IJ. Worse: Replace the Salivation Army with the leading halfwits of the ID movement.

Look, for all its wonderful deeds, the Salivation Army has its obvious shortcomings. How soon we forget its crooked little backroom dealins with the Bush Administration a few years back, wherein it sought to curry favor with the administration by promising to lobby in support of Bush's Faith Based Initiatives; in return, the Administration would bend the rules to allow the SA to skirt the federal-funding discrimination laws (IOW, refuse to hire homosexuals and non-christians), while still receiving taxpayer dollars.

At the same time, Wal*Mart is also well-known to use the government for its selfish ends, at the epxense of fairness and equal treatment under the law. It jest LOVES eminent domain. And how many unfair tax breaks do they get by blackmailing local governments?

Hate to break it to Colby Cosh, but, beyond their shiny veneer, those organizations have skeletons in their closets---skeletons that I'd hate to see resurrected at the point of a gun (though, I'll concede that it'd be better than the crooks in DC right now...but that's not saying much)

|9.15.05 @ 8:56AM|#

There's really no such thing as a "true" or "accurate" story, either. All news stories involve some subjective decisions as to what information to include, what to leave out, what to simplify, what perspective to take, and so forth.

Also consider that news is a form of entertainment. People like to kid themselves that it's important to be "informed" of events but for the most part the stuff you get from the news media has little bearing on your day-to-day life.

|9.15.05 @ 8:58AM|#

I suppose I wouldn't mind them getting angry if they would stop pretending that their anger has anything to do with the hurricane or the suffering related to it and just admit that it is the result of their political beliefs and hatred of the Republican Party.

I saw Fox News' Shepard Smith go nearly ballistic at one point, talking about the human misery that surrounded him. But I did not realize that Fox News anchors had an anti-Republican bias.

|9.15.05 @ 9:17AM|#

"There's really no such thing as a "true" or "accurate" story, either. All news stories involve some subjective decisions as to what information to include, what to leave out, what to simplify, what perspective to take, and so forth." --Danimal

This strikes me as an odd argument, if it's an argument. Because a news story is invariably from a particular perspective, it cannot ever be true or accurate? Because people decide what to include in a news story, it cannot ever be true or accurate? Of course it is possible that one might make a wrong decision about what is relevant to include in a story; but it is also possible to make a correct decision. Danimal's claim that in order to be true a story would have to be without perspective seems nonsensical: one may as well claim that the only way one can see the Statue of Liberty accurately is if one looks at it from no particular direction. Just as one can get an accurate picture of the Statue of Liberty from a particular perspective, one can accurately portray an event from a particular perspective. Of course, some perspectives are better than others and it is usually better (more complete, more truthful) to incorporate and compare perspectives, which is exactly what an objective person is interested in doing. I have a fairly accurate notion of what the Statue of Liberty looks like despite never having been there and despite ever picture I have ever seen of it having been taken from a particular perspective by a fallible human.

|9.15.05 @ 9:58AM|#

Window, I see your point.

I guess what I'm getting at is more about the nature of "truth" itself than anything the media does.

|9.15.05 @ 10:08AM|#

Without rehashing the arguments about objectivity, I want to point out that everyone here is making a simple mistake by confusing television "news" with reporting. It's not.
I've covered several stories that had attracted the talking heads, and can say that with a few exceptions, they are not interested in background information, or even in knowing what the story really is. They are interested in coming up with a good sound bite.

|9.15.05 @ 10:19AM|#

Danimal,

I see. Although that's a pretty scary notion of truth, no? (Not that being scary counts against it.) In fact, it seems like the denial of truth: if perspective destroys truth, and perspective is inescapable...

I suppose that if there is no truth then that does free us from feeling frustrated about the way things are or working to change things--after all, if it isn't true that things are any particular way at all, we can just sit back and enjoy the show. If claims such as "Tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed in the Iraq War", "Humans are mortal" and "The Holocaust happened" are not true (since nothing is) then start the party, I say!

That would be a load off my mind were it true. And perhaps it is. Oh wait...

|9.15.05 @ 10:23AM|#

I'm all for sneering and sputting reporters if we can also have the flipside, which is annoyed and offended interviewees telling the reporters to fuck off and socking them in the eye.

Amen to that.

I think the trouble is reporters get this robert-redford-speaking-truth-to-power fantasy somewhere in journalism school (a contradiction in terms), and thus feel it is a moral axiom that they have the right to "ask the tough questions" and "get outraged", etc. but should their interview subjects return the favor, well it's unjustified aggression brought on by their guilty consciences.

|9.15.05 @ 10:23AM|#

Number 6,

I think that the TV news folks call themselves "reporters" and that they would say that they are "reporting the news." They may not be reporting it well--on that I think we would agree--but they are reporting. I don't think that "TV news reporter" is a contradiction in terms, and so I don't think people here are confusing the two. Perhaps I misunderstood your point?

theOneState|9.15.05 @ 10:26AM|#

I saw Fox News' Shepard Smith go nearly ballistic at one point, talking about the human misery that surrounded him.

That was great. Shep really deserves a chance to bitch-slap Hannity all across America. Hannity kept cutting him off telling him things weren't really that bad, and anyway 'things are being done'. He tried to get Shep to agree. I was waiting for Shep to yell "I don't HEAR any fucking helicopters, Sean, do you?!?"

He looks suddenly old, though.

|9.15.05 @ 10:31AM|#

"I saw Fox News' Shepard Smith go nearly ballistic at one point, talking about the human misery that surrounded him. But I did not realize that Fox News anchors had an anti-Republican bias."

Jennifer, critics of the So Called Liberal Media don't need to base to base their conclusion on facts. Like Creationists, they know what the ultimate answer is, and any intellectual effort they generate goes to filling in the blanks to get to the already-obvious conclusion.

theOneState|9.15.05 @ 10:33AM|#

Most reporters are objective. Even Matt Welch is reasonably objective. Not objective is when reporters shill for political parties or persons, not when their philosophical views shade their delivery.

I try listening to Air America sometimes, and sometimes I forget I'm lisetning to it b/c it's the news section and, short as it is, it really is a news section.

theOneState|9.15.05 @ 10:45AM|#

Like Creationists, they know what the ultimate answer is, and any intellectual effort they generate goes to filling in the blanks to get to the already-obvious conclusion.

I know, it's awful. But it's not a left-right issue, not by a longshot. I mean, everyone is guilty of this except for me.

|9.15.05 @ 11:48AM|#

RareWindow- I suppose, in a technical sense, TV's talking hairdos are reporters, but only in the sense that a five-year-old working through The Little Engine That Could is a reader. My point is really that anyone who looks to the television for anything more than breaking headlines is wasting time.

As for objectivity: either you earnestly seek truth, or you don't.

|9.15.05 @ 11:55AM|#

RareWindow- I suppose, in a technical sense, TV's talking hairdos are reporters, but only in the sense that a five-year-old working through The Little Engine That Could is a reader. My point is really that anyone who looks to the television for anything more than breaking headlines is wasting time.

As for objectivity: either you earnestly seek truth, or you don't.

|9.15.05 @ 1:11PM|#

"Salivation Army" would make a great name for a punk band....

|9.15.05 @ 7:47PM|#

Actually, when Cooper was on Channel One he wasn't really a "host" - he was the one who always going to foreign hellholes and being shot at.