Well, one sign anyway, in David Postman's blog. Postman actually thinks that journalists should find out the facts in the fired US attorneys controversy, and that journalists should ask those making serious charges to substantiate those charges. Or, as I like to say, journalists should commit journalism, and not just echo charges from far left activist groups and Democratic talking points.
(For a contrasting, but more typical view, see this Kate Riley column, which is full of certainties, but weak on facts. She is sure, for example, that former House majority leader Tom DeLay has committed "egregious" offenses — but can't be bothered to name any.)
Let me give some advice to my friends in the "mainstream" media in this area. Learn something from Katie Couric's declining audience. And learn something from the collapse of the Plame "scandal". It is hard to beat the advice that liberal columnist David Broder gave last year:
These and other publications owe Karl Rove an apology. And all of journalism needs to relearn the lesson: Can the conspiracy theories and stick to the facts.
(Incidentally, does the Seattle Times owe Karl Rove an apology? I'll bet they do. In fact, I'll bet they owe him a bunch of apologies, but I won't hold my breath waiting for the Times to make any of them.)
And since I doubt that many local journalists will take my advice, let me give them a warning. It is not difficult, now that we have access to your archives on line, to compare how you treat Democratic scandals and Republican scandals, not difficult, for instance, to compare how you treated the mass firings of US attorneys by Bill Clinton to what you are doing now. (The Clinton firings were done, as everyone knows, to protect Clinton himself and, probably, Congressman Rostenkowski.) If local journalists keep being silly, they will have to expect that some moderate or conservative blogger, or even a leftist blogger who values fairness — and there are a few of those — will make that historical comparison.
And if local journalists think those comparisons will be good for their reputations, I suggest, again, that they take a look at Couric's declining audience and the collapse of the Plame "scandal".
Posted by Jim Miller at May 15, 2007 10:18 AM | Email ThisNon-scandals like this US Attorney firing example wouldn't have received a drop of ink if real journalistic practices and integrity were employed. The sad reality is that the mainstream media has decayed into a pure propaganda machine for the left, and on certain issues of politics, environment, and economy, they should be ignored.
Posted by: MJC on May 15, 2007 10:50 AMImagine how secret meetings (if there really was a DeepThroat) would never occur. With instant news, writers have to act more spurious or they won't get the scoop. You would never be able to get a plodding Woodward slowly releasing information.
The news 24/7 cycle prevents 'good' journalism. I don't know the answer, but these phony 'scandals' are something I expect from my old high school newspapers.
Posted by: swatter on May 15, 2007 11:06 AMOh wait, those people were DEMOCRATS. The Seattle Time and Seattle PI don't cover scandals concerning democrats. Silly me.
Posted by: johnny on May 15, 2007 11:07 AM"The Clinton firings"? I understand there was the standard, beginning-of-first-term mass replacement of all US Attorneys. Are you talking about something else?
You wrote:
"It is not difficult, now that we have access to your archives on line, to compare how you treat Democratic scandals and Republican scandals, not difficult, for instance, to compare how you treated the mass firings of US attorneys by Bill Clinton to what you are doing now. (The Clinton firings were done, as everyone knows, to protect Clinton himself and, probably, Congressman Rostenkowski.) "
True justice would put that inquiry back on track.
If Mark Foley could keep his hands off the Congressional Pages then the media would have no reason to report that either. Politicians are high profile targets so reporting about them is quite easy.
The media reports what happens, the people to decide what captures their interest, the media follows up on what people want so they can make money. It's simple economics not bias.
I have a better question: why are YOU obsessed with Seattle politics? You live on the other side of the country, so what difference does this make to you? Also, I see that you haven't taken me up on my invitation to self-immolation. Pity.
Posted by: John Galt on May 15, 2007 12:48 PM(no wonder)
Posted by: dan on May 15, 2007 12:50 PMWrong. The MSM are not equal opportunity reporters in terms of scandals. Just searching the Google news archives you will find it's almost 4 to 1 the number of articles regading Foley than there were for Cunningham, Jefferson, et al, when you search for "_______________ scandal".
On the television media, there were stories about Foley just about every day while that was going on. Cunningham, Jefferson, etc barely had a couple of mentions.
The US attorney firings is probably the most covered NON-SCANDAL in history. It's neck and neck with the Plame NON-SCANDAL, which to this day has had no one arrested or convicted for the crime itself which was supposedly outing an undercover agent.
Posted by: Palouse on May 15, 2007 01:05 PMMany US Attorneys resign when a president of the other party takes office, and that new president appoints their replacements. In Reagan and Bush Sr. years, a good percentage resigned or finished up their 4-year terms and then were replaced. Bill Clinton was the first president to fire all 93 US Attorneys in one fell swoop.
It's difficult to argue that the blanket firing was not intended to cripple several active investigations underway, but the mainstream media certainly didn't get excited about it. For a Democrat president, the phrase "works at the pleasure of the president" apparently meant something. For a Republican president, though, the phrase apparently means nothing to our national leftist propaganda machine.
Just another example of the media's double standard, collusion with the left, bias, dishonesty, lack of journalistic integrity, etc. You take your pick. I think "all of the above".
Posted by: MJC on May 15, 2007 01:14 PMBoy this gets reported so much by people one would think it's fact. Truth is Reagan did the same thing. Yes, Clinton fired them all. So did Dubya but not in one giant fatal swoop. The difference between all the prior attorney firings is that 1) they did not dismiss them in mid-term (unless they were involved in a scandal), 2) They did not appoint the people who they fired (with exceptions for scandals).
Just searching the Google news archives you will find it's almost 4 to 1 the number of articles regarding Foley than there were for Cunningham, Jefferson, et al,
Maybe because America loves nothing more than a lying hypocrite pervert who gets caught. Heck how many articles are written about Paris Hilton going to jail vs Mark Foley.
Last Month:
Paris Hilton Jail - 5,577
Attorney General Scandal - 3,508
Mark Foley Scandal - 128
Ben Stevens Scandal - 24
Obviously people care more about Paris Hilton going to jail than they do about anything else.
Most of us don't care.
Just like the firings.. The MSN won't let go, even though there is nothing there.
By the way CATO, why isn't the MSN screaming at GW with high gas prices... where is the, say poor old me who can't aford the cost of gas.
Why ... heck you know! MSN.
Need I really say anymore.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 15, 2007 04:39 PMIf there's nothing there then why would Monica Goodling take the 5th? Why would fully qualified senior justice officials suddenly resign? Why can't Gonzales recall anything about his job?
While there's likely nothing there (like the Lewinsky scandal) but that won't stop the Democrats in the House/Senate from hogging the limelight to embarrass the Republican party. Coming up on an election year would you expect anything less from either party? I certainly don't.
The reason why people take the 5th is so that they don't get tripped up by the questions and then convicted of obstructing justice or something. Is there politics involved there? Sure. But NOTHING illegal.
Cato, you conveniently chose the last month for data, and of course Foley and Stevens won't have many articles in that time span. Search the full archives and it's a different story.
Posted by: Palouse on May 16, 2007 07:41 AMWhile there's likely nothing there (like the Lewinsky scandal)
_____________________________________________
Gezzz Cato, you really want to go down that road again. Clinton was in trouble, not because of the REP's... he was in trouble because he LIED to a Judge he appointed to the bench! He lied to a JUDGE! you dummy!
That lawsuit was brought foward because of a law Clinton signed! Are you that dang dense!
MY GOD your really dumb... Lawyers went after Clinton for a law he signed in power then broke it.. The Rep's had nothing to do with it until he was found guilty of lying to a JUDGE... You still keep missing that point Cato.
You really need better talking points!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 16, 2007 11:43 AM