Journalism, Cuomo and reality

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I'm gonna go ahead and do a little crowd-sourcing for my info!

I recently watched a TED-talk about how there is no such thing as objective journalism. (source) He discusses how the history of journalism and how it's always been about selling the most papers and making that money and who gives a fuck if it's true!

Well, OK. So after I watched that, I went ahead and browsed some news headlines. I saw one that caught my eye, primarily, cause it seemed very much at odds with what I would expect. Here's the headline:

Gov. Andrew Cuomo says gun-loving pro-lifers not welcome in New York, right explodes

As a NYer, this seemed very very odd. Gov Cuomo is a pretty shrewd politician and this year he is up for re-election. It's a not private secret that Cuomo might eye the 2016 nod for President, so he totally wants to be a sitting Gov for that--looks better to the voters and all.

So why the hell would Cuomo alienate two big voting blocks in an election year? NYC might be super-liberal, but upstate NY is kinda rednecky. They love their guns and lotta folks hate on abortion. So what gives Herr Gov?

Well, as I read the article (found here source ) it seemed odder and odder, but I mean, it's possible he said such things. So I go ahead and click on the video link that you will see on that website. It's not actually video, just a still picture while some audio plays. This is unfortunate. I must admit here I have not heard Gov. Cuomo make many speeches. None in person and only bits here and there from his State of the State or whatnot. But as I listened to the embeded audio I became more and more skeptical that this voice was the voice of Andrew Cuomo. (The article already lost some credibility when in the first line it said his name was "Gov. Chris Cuomo")

I'm about ready to reject the entire so-called news story. I don't want to believe that they made the entire thing up--but I really don't see much choice. I went and found a video with audio of Cuomo talking (I do know what the guy looks like!) and the voice and cadence don't seem to mesh with the voice of the fellow who is alienating pro-life, pro-gun voters.


I am willing to be wrong.
A) Do any of you think that Cuomo did make such comments? Why?
B) If Cuomo did make such comments, I gotta lose some respect for his political prowess (not that he's my favorite politician, but I did at least think he knew what he was doing, even if I didn't like what he was doing) cause it seems really dumb to make those sorts of statements in an election year. Do any of you see his comments in a different light?
C) Objective journalism might not exist; but we can all agree that news isn't news if its totally false, right? Then it's just fiction? And while journalism may be heavily editorialized it should at least have some grounding in fact, otherwise, it's like Glenn Beck's chalkboard--worthless.

Comments

[hey-its-michael.livejournal.com]

I don't see the problem with what he is characterized as saying: "New York state is no place for “extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault-weapon, anti-gay” Republicans."

Right to Lifers are a bit different than "pro life", and "pro assault weapons" aren't the universe of "gun lovers".

Of course, in the media, especially on the Right, nuance and logic do not exist.

So, in answer to your questions:

A) Probably
B) See above
C) Agreed

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Have you been to or travelled around upstate NY much? I feel like Cuomo is shooting himself in the foot, not only locally in his Gov race, but it's definitely not the sort of statement for someone who has national aspirations...IMHO. If he did say such things, I suspect he has a team of people figuring out how it would play out for his image. It just seems....out of character for a politician I have seen play both sides of the field.

[hey-its-michael.livejournal.com]

I understand that upstate New York is a lot more conservative compared to downstate. With that said, how pro "assault weapons" are out of staters?

Again, if he were blasting all guns, I understand how detrimental his remarks would be. Also, given the media's inability to depict nuance in statements, I understand it may well prove a hinderance to him.

Of course, these remarks strike me as less inflammatory than Obama's "clinging to guns and religion" remarks going into the 2008 campaign, and that worked out for him. So who knows?

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I don't know. Obama was explaining why people might be angry and where they might turn that anger. It's a little different than saying some people, like pro-lifers, "they have no place in the state of New York"

Obama was, in one light, being sympathetic. Hard to spin Cuomo as being sympathetic here.

Unsympathetic, but upon reflection, there is a move-to-the-middle happening here. Maybe this is just politics as usual.

[hey-its-michael.livejournal.com]

"It's a little different than saying some people, like pro-lifers, "they have no place in the state of New York"

Well, like I mentioned above, I see a bit of a difference between "pro-lifers" and those whom Cuomo labeled "right to lifers". The latter seem like the militant let's-picket-a-clinic type, while the former believe abortion is wrong but aren't militant about it.

Perhaps that is a difference most people don't see?

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

"pro assault weapons" aren't the universe of "gun lovers".

Might as well be, the term assault weapon has been redefined by gun control advocates so many times that it is effectively meaningless in this context.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

tagged as gun-laws? really? this has very little to do with that indeed. do y'all have a bot that does that or something?

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

You need to chill. We don't want you to pop a vein circuit or something, do we.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

I must admit here I have not heard Gov. Cuomo make many speeches. None in person and only bits here and there from his State of the State or whatnot. But as I listened to the embeded audio I became more and more skeptical that this voice was the voice of Andrew Cuomo.

It's him. Absolutely.

[musicpsych.livejournal.com]

Does he have a realistic shot at 2016? Just wondering. For some reason, I have a negative opinion of him, even though I don't know much about him.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

It's eons away, to tell honestly. But he's a machine politician from a political family. I see no reason he couldn't contend or win, depending on the field of opposition (I really don't see Hilary making a run, but could be wrong)

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

I'm sure the Democrats will nominate a Northeastern governor sometime before the sun eventually becomes a red giant, but I would not bet on it in 2016.

[policraticus.livejournal.com]

In this, they have a lot in common with Republicans.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

http://hiyoooo.com


Is Trenton considered Northeast or Mid-Atlantic?

[wuvvumsoc.livejournal.com]

I'm just a bit curious how the regional background of the candidate comes into play? Are there certain stereotypes for Northeast politicians?

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

[wuvvumsoc.livejournal.com]

I still don't get it. Is this a reaction image?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

No, it's 1988 Democratic nominee and former Massachusetts governor Michael Dukakis. Let's just say his candidacy didn't go so well for the Democrats.

In fact, there are a few parallels you could draw between his candidacy and Mitt Romney's in terms of perception and execution.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

A) Do any of you think that Cuomo did make such comments? Why?

No question in my mind that he did. Why? I don't consider him especially savvy, I think it fits his demeanor as I know of him, and there was absolutely zero risk in him making the statement.

Do any of you see his comments in a different light?

I think he has certain points of view and legislative agendas in place that he doesn't want messed with, so he's channelling his inner New Yorker and making comments designed to make the dividing line expressly clear.

I can absolutely see someone like Chris Christie doing the same thing. "My way or the highway" is basically how Bloomberg governed New York City as well, and it looks like DiBlasio is in the mode.

Objective journalism might not exist; but we can all agree that news isn't news if its totally false, right? Then it's just fiction?

Objective journalism can exist if journalists want it. It requires a type of effort, however, that is not rewarded in the current journalistic at atmosphere. If it's false, it's false, but intent does matter in terms of the difference between fiction and bad reporting. If you're reporting with a point of view and consistently get it wrong because you're advancing a narrative (see: Matt Tiabbi, Beck, Maddow, Hannity, etc), that's miles worse than the alternative where you may not have talked to the right people or gotten some key point wrong.

The answer, of course, is to stop giving them hits. Quick clicking on links to ThinkProgress, to FreeRepublic, to Rolling Stone or The Weekly Standard, and reward good journalism. The market can decide if it wants to.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Objective journalism can exist if journalists want it.

See, after finishing your recommended book, I would disagree with that. That was, after all, the point of the TED talk, that objectivity is impossible. We are all the product of our perspective.

If anything, the message of Infamous Scribblers was that the founders wanted not an objective press, but at least one balanced with differing points of view (especially when the differing points agreed with their own).

And if no one gives Matt Tahibi hits, journalism can be considered moribund if not DOA.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

See, after finishing your recommended book, I would disagree with that.

The issue is the attempts (or lack thereof) for striving for objectivity. There are essentially three types of journalists when it comes to this topic:

* Actual objective-facing journalists. Some of them, like Jake Tapper, have some fame, but most you'll never hear of.
* Journalists who are biased (in either direction), but don't really know it. This is what we talk about most of the time when we talk about media bias. Solutions include newsroom diversity and better people getting into journalism, but alas.
* Actual ideological journalists. Includes ideological publications like The New Republic and National Review, but also "journalists" like Greenwald, Taibbi, and Palast.

If anything, the message of Infamous Scribblers was that the founders wanted not an objective press, but at least one balanced with differing points of view (especially when the differing points agreed with their own).

Which is entirely true, and is true of many "systems" of journalism. I still hold that we'd be better off if MSNBC didn't try to present as objective, and simply said they were providing an ideological point of view.

And if no one gives Matt Tahibi hits, journalism can be considered moribund if not DOA.

Journalism is moribund because people consider him reputable.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Tapper and "Actual objective-facing journalist" should not be used in the same sentence without a negation, dude. He's very conservative, and has used falsehoods to promote it in the past. When confronted with his falsehoods, he gave a bullshit response along the lines of "well, it fit the paradigm" or something of that nature. Tapper is, in fact, as ideological as Taibbi and Palast.

That's the thing with ideology. It exists. That the reporter is ideological does not negate the quality of their reporting. Tapper has done good work, just as Palast and Taibbi. The quality of their work should be determined not by the ideological content, but by the confirmation of the facts reported. If the facts are shoddy, so is the reporting.

With this, I think we can narrow down your list to just one. (I'm going to throw out the "don't really know it" crowd, since it doesn't matter one whit; their bias will show eventually).

MSNBC presents as slightly left, but with a corporatist slant, just as Fox presents as right with a corporatist slant. They are the left and right hands of a corporate body, no more. And that point, I am sorry to say, was what I wanted to read more about in Infamous Scribblers. How much did money slant news back then, or were conditions different in substantial enough ways?

I'm a bit busy right now with a project, but I should get to that later.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Tapper was such an ass in college. I'm still gob smacked that he's famous.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Tapper and "Actual objective-facing journalist" should not be used in the same sentence without a negation, dude. He's very conservative, and has used falsehoods to promote it in the past.

Unless this is a veiled admission that reality has a conservative bias, I don't know at all where this is coming from.

Tapper has done good work, just as Palast and Taibbi. The quality of their work should be determined not by the ideological content, but by the confirmation of the facts reported. If the facts are shoddy, so is the reporting.

Ideological reporting begets low-quality reporting, thus why Tapper, who is nonideological and basically good on the facts, is a good reporter, and Palast and Taibbi, two "journalists" who indulge in conspiracy theory and partisan nonsense, are not. Is it possible to be ideological and stick with the facts? Sure! Megan McArdle does it, Matt Yglesias does it, Byron York does it, and so on. It's not impossible to do, but they also wear their allegiances on their sleeve.

MSNBC presents as slightly left, but with a corporatist slant, just as Fox presents as right with a corporatist slant. They are the left and right hands of a corporate body, no more.

Oh dear god.

And that point, I am sorry to say, was what I wanted to read more about in Infamous Scribblers. How much did money slant news back then, or were conditions different in substantial enough ways?

I'm sorry to say that you didn't get that information because the book wasn't interested in conspiracy theories.

[caerfrli.livejournal.com]

It doesn't sound quite like him to me but others here who are even more familiar with his voice say it is. As to the content, Cuomo is considered pretty liberal by conservatives, though not so much by liberals so he may figure the right wing isn't going to vote for him anyway and his base needs some shoring up. Your other point that journalists favor selling papers/getting ratings is true. It's a business, not a calling, whatever mystique they like to have, though the mid-20th century did see some effort at independence. Certainly before that, papers were partisan and made no bones about it.