Don't even know who this guy is. The interview was a waste of my time. Please.
6
Who is Michael Wolff?
7
The 'media' represents commercial enterprises [read: make money] & writers with personal agendas [read: Ms. Dowd].
Buyer beware!
Buyer beware!
The comfort zone in the media and life in general gets smaller as things change around us. Computers are being made without optical drives, because download is the way to go. Hard drives are smaller because we can use the Cloud. I'm no Luddite, but neither am I a lamb to the slaughter, to make my tastes depend on the download market or to make my security dependent on an eminently hackable Cloud. As for "what Ailes would do?" God help us. If that's the criterion, we are surely doomed to mediocrity and to ownership by corporations.
1
Big media today is a lot like Big Auto in the sixties and seventies. The people in charge are neither particularly bright nor creative (it’s the natural evolution of corporate bloat) and so really have no clue about what they need to do in order to remain successful or even fulfill their stated mission to their “customers.”
3
To: Ed from Philly
I doubt the NYT lets reporters press “send” and see their article in real time. Editors review it, if only to make sure the stylebook is followed. I haven’t seen “its” and “it’s” confused by the Washington Post.
But there is another aspect that needs to be addressed: critical thinking.
Before the internet, we could be reasonably sure what showed up in print had been vetted. (We’re not talking about the World Weekly News or the National Enquirer…) If a newspaper printed a story, it had been reviewed at several stages. The New Yorker’s fact-checkers are legendary. Non-fiction didn't get published without being approved by lawyers. We came to believe that “they couldn’t print it if it wasn’t true.”
Today, anything can show up on websites that can’t pass minimal scrutiny for objectivity. The news cycle and people’s attention spans have both become shorter and the need for “product” has become greater.
So along comes a Michael Woolf to break our trust even further. I don’t object to the NYT printing his comments. In the same way that we need to understand what Fox News palms off under the guise of reporting, we need to know that someone like Mr. Woolf exists. It’s our responsibility to rally our critical thinking skills to know when rubbish and claptrap are being passed off as informed commentary.
And the ease of printing and publishing means that the need for critical thinking will become even more important in the future.
I doubt the NYT lets reporters press “send” and see their article in real time. Editors review it, if only to make sure the stylebook is followed. I haven’t seen “its” and “it’s” confused by the Washington Post.
But there is another aspect that needs to be addressed: critical thinking.
Before the internet, we could be reasonably sure what showed up in print had been vetted. (We’re not talking about the World Weekly News or the National Enquirer…) If a newspaper printed a story, it had been reviewed at several stages. The New Yorker’s fact-checkers are legendary. Non-fiction didn't get published without being approved by lawyers. We came to believe that “they couldn’t print it if it wasn’t true.”
Today, anything can show up on websites that can’t pass minimal scrutiny for objectivity. The news cycle and people’s attention spans have both become shorter and the need for “product” has become greater.
So along comes a Michael Woolf to break our trust even further. I don’t object to the NYT printing his comments. In the same way that we need to understand what Fox News palms off under the guise of reporting, we need to know that someone like Mr. Woolf exists. It’s our responsibility to rally our critical thinking skills to know when rubbish and claptrap are being passed off as informed commentary.
And the ease of printing and publishing means that the need for critical thinking will become even more important in the future.
7
If news organizations don't feel an obligation to present factual accounts informed by structured analyses designed to minimize bias, then they are at best entertainment writers, at worst they are propagandists.
5
"What does my audience want?"
The standard question that sounds so compassionate with the audience, but is neither true nor false. It is the subject of a tract by Harry Frankfurt about a certain term. This is what Wolff is offering here.
The real question is: "How can I monetize that and make those who consume my stuff in any shape or form believe I am doing it for them?
One more bloviator here.
The standard question that sounds so compassionate with the audience, but is neither true nor false. It is the subject of a tract by Harry Frankfurt about a certain term. This is what Wolff is offering here.
The real question is: "How can I monetize that and make those who consume my stuff in any shape or form believe I am doing it for them?
One more bloviator here.
2
Oh well. I suppose that this guy knows the Marion Barry rule re publicity. I haven't had a television machine in years, and could care less. The NYT Op Ed page, on the other hand, couldn't do without.
3
"Media consensus" , this term is fodder for all conspiracy theorists of all political persuasions who suspect there exists a Kafkaesque National Overseeing Editorial Board. It is not a helpful nor accurate term. It arises from the cynics who said, "The New York Times prints all the news that fits". "Television news anchors are not journalists but performers". Such labeling maligns both professions. To become a news anchor, the candidates now take college journalism courses and spend years in journalism, sometimes print and later television, and sometimes just television working in a variety of places. Candidates for news anchors do not spend years in acting in cinema or stage. Michael Wolff's cynicism fails to appreciate the work of journalists and actors who work hard refining their talent, improving their craft, and daily informing their public about the truths necessary for being an educated citizenry.
3
Yes, the media railroading of Brian Williams was sickening. NBC really shot themselves in the foot, because Mr Williams is a real talent. But it's not the first time.
2
A real talent? A pompous liar is more like it.
2
Why does the press always become the center of its own story? Hmmm, maybe because it is run by colorful loudmouths with axes to grind? I don't mean Rupert Murdoch, or Roger Ailes, either.
Mr. Leibovich, or his judicious editors, must have removed the dozen, or so, references to the Newser news-aggregator website Michael Wolff founded in 2007. There can't be any other explanation for it not being mentioned by this little blowhard multiple times for promotion's sake.
Apparently, Mr. Wolff still reads the NY Times, but not its magazine. It probably gets misplaced on his coffee table, under stacks of other print newspapers he buys and never reads, just like the rest of the NY City media crowd. So much for the value of Newser and its slogan about knowing more while reading less. Also, he should consider getting subscriptions to his three favorite newspapers. He would save himself enough money every year to buy himself a new bathrobe AND a coat big enough to fit over it.
6
Why does the press always become the center of its own story? Hmmm, maybe because it is run by colorful loudmouths with axes to grind? I don't mean Rupert Murdoch, or Roger Ailes, either.
Mr. Leibovich, or his judicious editors, must have removed the dozen, or so, references to the Newser news-aggregator website Michael Wolff founded in 2007. There can't be any other explanation for it not being mentioned by this little blowhard multiple times for promotion's sake.
Apparently, Mr. Wolff still reads the NY Times, but not its magazine. It probably gets misplaced on his coffee table, under stacks of other print newspapers he buys and never reads, just like the rest of the NY City media crowd. So much for the value of Newser and its slogan about knowing more while reading less.
1
Yes! Serious journalists lost a lot of their power to be self righteous when they abdicated their responsibilities during the Bush years (sorry New York Times). And thanks, Michael, for telling the truth about Brian Williams--he was very good at his job--reading the news, relating to viewers--and was the network was hypocritically "shocked" by the lack of "rigor" in his reporting. As if the other 23 hours a day NBC and the other networks do not air the equivalent of tabloid fodder in the form of reality TV. They need the charade of the nightly news because it's the only shred of dignity they've got left.
10
I don't see why anyone takes Wolff seriously. Yes, he has a way with words, but in terms of insights, he offers little more than wryly-worded takes on the conventional wisdom, and in terms of forecasting...well, he predicted the Times' demise - yes, its demise - back in 2008 (or earlier). Last I checked, the NYT was alive and kicking.
He also predicted a world where content makers - like the Times - would go away, giving way to aggregators. And yet he was never able to answer what exactly the aggregators would be aggregating if there was no one producing content. Come on.
Look, I'm not saying print is in great shape (after all, they keep asking people like Wolff for their take on things), but this guy is a clown.
He also predicted a world where content makers - like the Times - would go away, giving way to aggregators. And yet he was never able to answer what exactly the aggregators would be aggregating if there was no one producing content. Come on.
Look, I'm not saying print is in great shape (after all, they keep asking people like Wolff for their take on things), but this guy is a clown.
14
The PUBLISHER of the Times predicted the Times' demise in saying "we will stop printing", but he wouldn't name the date. That was about 5 years ago, not that long after Wolff did it.
Forget the "high minded standard." It's good to observe ANY medium to high quality standard, especially in the information biz. Sorting it all out, is exhausting, and steals the time we should be using finding out what really happened in the world. Not knowing the truth leads to unfortunate events...like the Iraq War, as does trusting the wrong people.
2
"Give the public what it wants" and "Never give a sucker an even break" pretty much sum up media today. So why should anyone believe anything presented by the media? I know I don't. I don't believe this article, for that matter.
3
Do we really need an article amplifying the inanities of Michael Wolff? He has little to offer besides cliches. Yes, businesses should be attentive to the needs of their customers. Thank you for the blindingly obvious insight. But tell me something: if our print media are merely businesses, and if their sole aim is to make money, why should we care whether they survive or go extinct?
9
We stopped paying much attention to the network news when they become a side show of sound bits to describe a recent video probably posted on YouTube. Not even sure who M Wolff pretends to be these days. The print news, even if displayed on a high resolution monitor gets smaller and smaller every year even though "advertising" gobbles up more revenue than the churches these days. If they could find a way to attach an ad to the air we breathe, that would be a high priority, yes? It's already on the water, food and practically every other commodity on the planet.
3
George Orwell warned us about Newsspeak.
3
The media is always the center of their own story. No one is more important to them but them. And, what is really entertaining, because they control the microphones and the cameras (currently under assault by social media, however) whenever the media is criticized (Brian Williams is one instance, the demonizing of Hillary Clinton another, the cheerleading for the Iraq invasion, the promoting of racist commentators such as Hannity, you name it), they promptly convene a panel of reporting types (the usual suspects) on television, fully debate the criticism, and find themselves blameless.
2
I don't want to sound picky, but if I receive a business letter from a public official or a company executive, and it has errors in spelling or grammar, I assume that the writer is careless, irresponsible, lazy, uneducated, or all of the above. If what a person has to say is important, he / she should be concerned with the content and presentation.
In recent years, I have seen articles, even in classy publications like the Washington Post and the Times that could definitely use an editor. Are there any fact checkers or copy editors out there? Advancing to digital media, the problem gets worse with such things as confusion between "rain," "reign," "rein." Worse than that, does anybody know the difference between "Its," and "It's?"
To me, it is a sign that there are no secretaries any more, and every so-called "journalist" sits at a keyboard, writes an article, which immediately goes into the news feed, with no other party even seeing it.
Combining the above with the substantial inclusion of opinion posing as fact, and most American media amounts to little more than garbage.
I see little hope for the future. I once gave a presentation at middle school. When it was over, a Master's degree - equipped teacher told me, "The kids went for your talk in a 'majorly' way!"
In recent years, I have seen articles, even in classy publications like the Washington Post and the Times that could definitely use an editor. Are there any fact checkers or copy editors out there? Advancing to digital media, the problem gets worse with such things as confusion between "rain," "reign," "rein." Worse than that, does anybody know the difference between "Its," and "It's?"
To me, it is a sign that there are no secretaries any more, and every so-called "journalist" sits at a keyboard, writes an article, which immediately goes into the news feed, with no other party even seeing it.
Combining the above with the substantial inclusion of opinion posing as fact, and most American media amounts to little more than garbage.
I see little hope for the future. I once gave a presentation at middle school. When it was over, a Master's degree - equipped teacher told me, "The kids went for your talk in a 'majorly' way!"
6
He mentions that no one reads the Times Magazine anymore, but I think what he was saying is that no one pays attention to Michael Wolff anymore. With all due respect, as we seek to truly understand things like the media and where it is today, It's a little baffling to me why the Times is interviewing him --someone who reads all his newspapers in print-- and for what it is worth, his analysis here is not particularly insightful. If you read what he says, each comment he makes is cynical and smacks of narcissism. He talks of lawsuits, these people are wrong, those people are wrong, he would "laugh at you" for saying thus and such, the Post was mean to me (please google this, it's an unbelievable window into his life) he insults Brian Williams and on and on. (while Brian may deserve criticism it's different to just be nasty). I expect more from the Times and hopefully they will interview people with a more relevant and current perspective on things, rather than someone who is not really attuned to any of the issues spoken of here. Again, this is said to hope the Times leads the way here going forward.
5
What’s the point of this piece? Why don't you cut to the chase?
The electronic media, IMO, caters to a mostly uneducated, uniformed, indifferent population, for whose very whim it must react by regurgitating news to entertainment - for profit.
Digital media? It’s just a form of spreading information. Thinking “electronic media" is an end to itself is nonsense; it's what paper did in the past, served as a medium for type. The combination of writer and reader is everything. The dumbing down of our society allowed the media to turn into a predatory, money making, honey pot, called "the media." Its obligation is to spread entertainment to a public in denial of reality - empty calories for the consumer, billions for its savvy manipulators.
For all the ancillary benefits (like watching a movie on the subway and taking selfies) the electronic media is still a means of spreading information. Information is what you make it, meaningful dialogue or pap. Sadly, pap is what makes money and that creates "the media."
With all her faults, maybe Hillary is on to something by not talking to the media?
The electronic media, IMO, caters to a mostly uneducated, uniformed, indifferent population, for whose very whim it must react by regurgitating news to entertainment - for profit.
Digital media? It’s just a form of spreading information. Thinking “electronic media" is an end to itself is nonsense; it's what paper did in the past, served as a medium for type. The combination of writer and reader is everything. The dumbing down of our society allowed the media to turn into a predatory, money making, honey pot, called "the media." Its obligation is to spread entertainment to a public in denial of reality - empty calories for the consumer, billions for its savvy manipulators.
For all the ancillary benefits (like watching a movie on the subway and taking selfies) the electronic media is still a means of spreading information. Information is what you make it, meaningful dialogue or pap. Sadly, pap is what makes money and that creates "the media."
With all her faults, maybe Hillary is on to something by not talking to the media?
2
Print does not, cannot, never has given itself away for free.
All media have three sources of revenue: circulation (what readers/viewers pay), advertising, and other (subsidies, donations, etc.). Those who produce the media and pocket the net profits would like as much as possible of all three, but that's hard to manage given the competition. Every publication must try to find the combination that maximises profit, and always has done: controlled circulation publications are given to readers for 'free' and rely entirely on ad revenue and subsidies; ad-free publications rely entirely on circulation and subsidies; but most publications rely on all three sources in varying proportions. The problem with newspapers is that management has had trouble with the new world.
As the Clark Gable character said in 'Teacher's Pet,' newspapers back then set the price per copy to just cover the physical costs of paper and ink for that copy, while advertising covered the editorial costs. A rule of thumb that used to work, but doesn't any more, and management hasn't figured out a new rule of thumb that works for the web.
All media have three sources of revenue: circulation (what readers/viewers pay), advertising, and other (subsidies, donations, etc.). Those who produce the media and pocket the net profits would like as much as possible of all three, but that's hard to manage given the competition. Every publication must try to find the combination that maximises profit, and always has done: controlled circulation publications are given to readers for 'free' and rely entirely on ad revenue and subsidies; ad-free publications rely entirely on circulation and subsidies; but most publications rely on all three sources in varying proportions. The problem with newspapers is that management has had trouble with the new world.
As the Clark Gable character said in 'Teacher's Pet,' newspapers back then set the price per copy to just cover the physical costs of paper and ink for that copy, while advertising covered the editorial costs. A rule of thumb that used to work, but doesn't any more, and management hasn't figured out a new rule of thumb that works for the web.
1
To dismiss the Brian Williams failure as a "kerfuffle" suggests a loss of the sense of worth. Read Eric Sevareid's Not So Wild A Dream, or Elmer Davis' But We Were Born Free, or Edward R. Murrow's script on Senator Joseph McCarthy and then tell me that truth in news is not the one and always purpose. I think such cynicism suggests a man who has been disappointed.
1
The idea that the digital revolution is not the wave of the present and the future is inaccurate. The Internet is the greatest media force created by mankind. It will oversee the dissolution of governments and nationalism. Marshall McLuhan's Global Village is on the edge of being realized. Thanks to the Internet the reach of the common person extends across the globe. It is a breathtaking and frightening time to be alive.
1
This article is telling us that whatever we all think we already know has every right to remain untouched, and that sources of information that might correct someone's notion of reality are just part of the vast entertainment circus. Apparently, we who watch "the news," have no right to expect our assumptions challenged, or our sacred cows skewered, but should simply settle in for an evening of entertainment as irrelevant as a sit com.
1
I didn't know who this man was about two minutes ago. I still don't really know who he is now, but I know I don't like him.
14
Awesome.
Did anyone else notice that he did not say what the headline attributes to him?
2
Like Fox news itself, this guy is an entertainer first and a journalist last. If he were in any position of serious responsibility, he wouldn't follow his own advice.
7
Sorry, Mr. Wolff, but some people actually think the responsibility is not to make your own business work but to make our own world work. Pandering to peoples ignorance and hate may be good for Mr. Ailes' business but its been really bad for the nation, the people, and world and without a world to live in there's not much of a business to have.
10
So if lies & manipulation sell better than journalism, more power to the liars! Why should I believe anything this man says? Why is the Times printing this "interview" that doesn't even ask Mr Wolff to explain his advocacy of dishonesty? We are truly a sick culture.
2
Michael Wolff has only one ambition: to become a media titan. But unlike the media moguls he writes about (badly and jealously) he is a complete failure: He drove his book-packaging cum website empire into the ground. His bid to buy New York Mag turned to dust. And his failed editorship of Adweek barely lasted a year.
Wolff is primarily known for his snarky but flacid opining about his media betters most of whom surely consider him a buffoon.
I can't imagine why the Times would want to waste it's time on his pathetic take on anything.
Wolff is primarily known for his snarky but flacid opining about his media betters most of whom surely consider him a buffoon.
I can't imagine why the Times would want to waste it's time on his pathetic take on anything.
6
Who is this guy and who cares what he thinks. Money isn't everything, truth should matter.
6
"Williams is not a journalist; he's a performer." Aren't we all, and the media is a stage we all perform on. Who's to say who gets the ax.
Fox "News" Roger Ailes great insight is that a news channel is not about facts, not about information so much as it is about entertainment. NBC continues to think that the Nightly News should 'uphold the highest journalistic standards' while getting and holding the attention of its viewers. However Fox "News" continually proves that 'truthiness' is what's important - make it punchy and entertaining, blend the opinion and commentary and the news so skillfully that the edges don't show, and always, always make it entertaining. A mesmerized audience is a profitable audience. NBC slammed Brian Williams because he puffed up his experiences in Iraq, as if they whole news presence in Iraq was not carefully stage-managed by the Pentagon to be a reality show image of American military might in action. Real journalism might have uncovered the roots of the push to invade, and followed the money to see why we did, but that's not as photogenic as helicopters! explosions! car bombs! Fox "News" never forgets to make their "news" entertaining, even if it is just talking heads arguing. They captivate their audience and hold its attention while the bias and skew slip in unnoticed, because it all sounds truthy, and its an eyeful while making viewers feel they are on top of happening events. What they get is a reinforcement of their bias, a reassurance they are being 'talked to straight' while "the MSM" somehow is the source of the breakdown of journalistic integrity.
3
TV journalism is a contradiction in terms.
I grew up with Walter Cronkite and Eric Sevareid. I miss broadcast journalism with integrity. I was a boy, but do I remember Edward R. Murrow and his documentary "Harvest of Shame."
I read the Times every day, but it's not the same paper if was in 1968 when it was reporting the VN war.
I grew up with Walter Cronkite and Eric Sevareid. I miss broadcast journalism with integrity. I was a boy, but do I remember Edward R. Murrow and his documentary "Harvest of Shame."
I read the Times every day, but it's not the same paper if was in 1968 when it was reporting the VN war.
2
"I think Hillary is highly vulnerable because her campaign probably rests on her success in not having the media kill her. That may be true about everybody’s campaign, but I think it is much more true about hers."
One has only to look at today's online version of the NYT (as of 2 minutes ago) to see the truth in this... Hillary Clinton launches her campaign here in NYC, on Roosevelt Island in Four Freedoms Park, and it rates a below-the-scroll tiny story on the left.
How much space did Ted Cruz get, again?
Or anyone on the (R) side?
One has only to look at today's online version of the NYT (as of 2 minutes ago) to see the truth in this... Hillary Clinton launches her campaign here in NYC, on Roosevelt Island in Four Freedoms Park, and it rates a below-the-scroll tiny story on the left.
How much space did Ted Cruz get, again?
Or anyone on the (R) side?
Hillary Clinton did not launch her campaign on Roosevelt Island. This may have been her first major public speech as a candidate, but she announced weeks ago, has been a candidate since then, and has been in a few Iowa living rooms and at least one Chipotle restaurant after her announcement. The latter non-event "appearance" received as much media coverage as any of the announcements from Republican candidates.
"Why does the press always become the center of its own story?"
Amen, amen, amen.
If the press had been doing a better job over the last 20 or so years, I might take their whining more seriously.
But, just today Mika on Morning Joe went crazy over Hillary's emails and no one, including Sam Stein who was trying to respond over her screeching, bothered to ask how that was different from Gov. Mitt Romney and all of his gubernatorial staff buying their government hard drives for $65 and wiping the government server.
I remembered when that was reported in 2011, but no one in the media seems to recall. The press let Mitt get away with that and seems to have totally forgotten their own reporting on an almost identical story.
Amen, amen, amen.
If the press had been doing a better job over the last 20 or so years, I might take their whining more seriously.
But, just today Mika on Morning Joe went crazy over Hillary's emails and no one, including Sam Stein who was trying to respond over her screeching, bothered to ask how that was different from Gov. Mitt Romney and all of his gubernatorial staff buying their government hard drives for $65 and wiping the government server.
I remembered when that was reported in 2011, but no one in the media seems to recall. The press let Mitt get away with that and seems to have totally forgotten their own reporting on an almost identical story.
86
There's your mistake emm -- watching Morning Joe. I watched it once when everyone (in the media) was talking about it. My take away: Why would you want to spend the morning with such a bully and his female enabler?
I remember the Romney story which seems, in my memory, to have disappeared over night. But the lesson of that story was that Mitt Romney and his team could get away with it because no one really cared about Romney.
Everyone, it seems, has their eyes on Clinton. If you want to be that central to the American political scene, why in the world would you give the media and your right-wing critics something to go after? That shows very poor judgment, which is different than what was or was not on her server.
I remember the Romney story which seems, in my memory, to have disappeared over night. But the lesson of that story was that Mitt Romney and his team could get away with it because no one really cared about Romney.
Everyone, it seems, has their eyes on Clinton. If you want to be that central to the American political scene, why in the world would you give the media and your right-wing critics something to go after? That shows very poor judgment, which is different than what was or was not on her server.
3
Everyone has their story told from their own angle. I'd say that the number of living people on this earth who see reality for what it actually is probably number no greater than the fingers on a hand. Brian Williams crime-against-the-truth wasn't that it was a lie but that his telling of it drove up against the honorable brave military men and that is sacrosanct.
I understand that there are numerous acts of heroism in some military conflicts but not all or even most acts merit the designated 'Hero' status. ALL soldiers Must Be heros in our volunteer services and if one is not in the service in order to achieve the Hero designation one must preform a nearly inhuman task and all aspects of the even must be absolute truth. But this is not so.
Since the invasion of Iraq, war in Afganistan, and Operation Inherent Resolve there has been an average of 448 American deaths per year attributed to conflict. During that same time period 650 American women die from pregnancy and birth related causes. All women, it is assumed, become pregnant voluntarily yet none are considered heros.
Caitlyn Jenner's recent announcement has gotten all types of negative feedback from military complex. Bruce Jenner was long considered an American Hero but apparently changing to a woman negated everything he has ever achieved in the eyes of military industry. Only every soldier can be a hero and that is where Brian Williams made his mistake.
I understand that there are numerous acts of heroism in some military conflicts but not all or even most acts merit the designated 'Hero' status. ALL soldiers Must Be heros in our volunteer services and if one is not in the service in order to achieve the Hero designation one must preform a nearly inhuman task and all aspects of the even must be absolute truth. But this is not so.
Since the invasion of Iraq, war in Afganistan, and Operation Inherent Resolve there has been an average of 448 American deaths per year attributed to conflict. During that same time period 650 American women die from pregnancy and birth related causes. All women, it is assumed, become pregnant voluntarily yet none are considered heros.
Caitlyn Jenner's recent announcement has gotten all types of negative feedback from military complex. Bruce Jenner was long considered an American Hero but apparently changing to a woman negated everything he has ever achieved in the eyes of military industry. Only every soldier can be a hero and that is where Brian Williams made his mistake.
24
LeBron can be a hero.
Wolff makes a living that allows him to steoll down to the corner in his batheobe in NYT to buy three papers by reporting on power. To even recognize power at work is rare these days, to report on who has it and how they got it and how they use it is unheard. Wolff doesn't have to be always right because he has a reporting monopoly by default.
8
Everyone I encounter, in a personal, professional, commercial, spiritual and financial, setting, engages in some level of exaggeration, embellishment, or distortion through emphasis, de-emphasis, and/or withholding of material information. Why should we expect the reporting of the news be any different? The mere decision of what stories to report, and which not to report, puts a bias in the flow of information from journalist to its audience.
So if I am hearing a story reported by Brian Williams, I might know that there may be a little personal embellishment in there not totally factually supported. And if I am watching Fox News, I will know that largely immaterial facts are emphasized, and salient material facts may be omitted. I just expect that to be the case.
When I was a youth during the cold war, I used to listen to international shortwave radio. It was fascinating to hear the differences between Warsaw Pact reporting and Free World reporting of current events. I don't think I ever got confused or grossly misled. I learned to consider the sources, and form my own opinions. It must have worked, because in my high school class of 750 students, I came in first in the Time Magazine current events test.
So if I am hearing a story reported by Brian Williams, I might know that there may be a little personal embellishment in there not totally factually supported. And if I am watching Fox News, I will know that largely immaterial facts are emphasized, and salient material facts may be omitted. I just expect that to be the case.
When I was a youth during the cold war, I used to listen to international shortwave radio. It was fascinating to hear the differences between Warsaw Pact reporting and Free World reporting of current events. I don't think I ever got confused or grossly misled. I learned to consider the sources, and form my own opinions. It must have worked, because in my high school class of 750 students, I came in first in the Time Magazine current events test.
26
You have the ability to think critically, curiosity to learn about the world and the time to get information from several sources. The vast majority of Americans have none of these three things, especially the thinking part. And even smart people can struggle to find time to be informed as we work and work to hang on to the scraps left after the oligarchs transfer wealth upward.
36
Should we apply the same standard to say your Doctor, Mechanic, Car manufacturer, Phone Company, Phone manufacturer, etc etc? You know, I just expect them to lie to me, to embellish, to omit salient facts, and by "considering the sources" you would find yourself never confused or grossly misled.
Congrats on coming first in the Time Magazine current events test, how did you do in the buildup to the Iraq War test?
Congrats on coming first in the Time Magazine current events test, how did you do in the buildup to the Iraq War test?
35
I believe we do apply the same standards to many other fields. It is called "advertising"
As in doing the limbo, we might well ask, how low can you go? Apparently not much lower when it comes to setting the bar on standards. The question: is this a valid reflection on the state of the media or one man's cynical use of it?
18
sixmile, I suggest that it is a valid reflection on the state of the media, and that the state of the media is a reflection of the state of the average American mind. Not a pretty picture in either case.
1
Sixmile, there is no race to the bottom; rather, this IS the bottom, on a daily basis.
That is the answer to the question: "Why does the press always become the center of its own story?" Roger Ailes has won.
1
There's a grain of truth in what this pompous man has to say. Print just started giving it away right away. Otherwise, he's just a cynical privileged capitalist with the paunch to prove it.
45
Sharp guy, and very right in one regard about Ailes' approach. Why would he be beholden to a hostile institution that is so threatened by him it does all it can to marginalize him? That much is evident about the liberal media's attitude toward the success of conservative media.
It's debatable if objectivity was ever an achievable outcome of the media. Highly doubtful, really, but it seems like Wolff is really saying that folks ought to abandon that pretense altogether in the interest of serving their audience by being transparent about their ideological agendas.
Hillary, likewise, can give up the charade of trying to be an "everyman" candidate because it her motives and methods are pretty obvious to most. Let her take pride in her strength as a master manipulator rather than try to conceal it. People will either support her for it or they won't.
It's debatable if objectivity was ever an achievable outcome of the media. Highly doubtful, really, but it seems like Wolff is really saying that folks ought to abandon that pretense altogether in the interest of serving their audience by being transparent about their ideological agendas.
Hillary, likewise, can give up the charade of trying to be an "everyman" candidate because it her motives and methods are pretty obvious to most. Let her take pride in her strength as a master manipulator rather than try to conceal it. People will either support her for it or they won't.
2
Fairness is a more realistic journalistic standard than objectivity. Ailes, who is a political operative at heart, cares nothing about fairness. He cares only about a narrative that appeals to his audience, especially their tribalism and sense of victimhood. He wants to mitigate their cognitive dissonance when inconvenient facts that can't be ignored counter that narrative. He wants all of this done in an entertaining way.
Ailes is very good at it. No news organization (I use the term loosely here) knows its audience as well as Fox. To assert that the so-called "liberal" media (almost all owned by corporations) operate in the same manner is obvious false equivalency.
Ailes is very good at it. No news organization (I use the term loosely here) knows its audience as well as Fox. To assert that the so-called "liberal" media (almost all owned by corporations) operate in the same manner is obvious false equivalency.
58
Ben: and maybe judges & scientists should also take a page from Ailes' book. Forget about that silly "objectivity" pretense! Play to the mob! Sift through the "facts" & quotes to tell the story that keeps them salivating.
Others rightly marginalize Faux and its audience because Faux does a particularly, demonstrably horrendous job of, you know, telling the truth.
2
There's a big conceptual error in the framing of Leibovich's questions, and predictable cynicism in Wolff's answers. "Is what our people say in public about the work they do for us TRUE?" is the question. That's not the "highest journalistic standard." That's a pretty low standard, and Brian Williams couldn't even clear that bar. Maybe I'm just not as world-weary and sophisticated as Michael Wolff.
25
Re "somebody screwed that up," aren't the new and old business models about the same--put the product in the hands of as many people as possible at a minimal cost to customers and sell the customers' attention to advertisers? The technological means for doing this have changed, and the environment's very competitive, but what's screwed up? Production and distribution costs are lower.
2
Perhaps no one "screwed up" but the fact is that eyeballs on the internet come at pennies on the dollars that the paper draws (drew).
5
The advertising business model may be more fragile than generally recognized. Network television is quickly losing viewers to HBO, Netflix and Amazon Prime - all without ads. Radio is losing to streaming services - most without ads. Apple's next iOS for its phones will support ad blocking.
The best investigative news show on TV is John Oliver's on HBO, where freely mocking major brands helps prove his credibility. Meanwhile NPR and PBS are increasingly distrustred, viewed as toadying to their sponsors. Within 10 years, advertising-supported media will be largely over.
The best investigative news show on TV is John Oliver's on HBO, where freely mocking major brands helps prove his credibility. Meanwhile NPR and PBS are increasingly distrustred, viewed as toadying to their sponsors. Within 10 years, advertising-supported media will be largely over.
1