>> ^dag: In related news MSNBC was reportedly banned from covering the Cramer vs Stewart drama by its parent company.
That explains why Rachel Maddow's reporting of the interview seemed so odd, and why Olbermann failed to mention it at all, even though he'd made sure to mention Stewart's roast of Cramer in absentia during the days leading up to the interview.
Well of course MSNBC wouldn't want to tout that bit of embarrassing film. The entire episode was devoted to Stewart beating the ever loving hell out of Cramer and the financial reporting world. Would you post a video of you getting your balls kicked in repeatedly? No of course not. Your friends post it.
My degree is in journalism. When I was in college, I won several awards for investigative reporting.
Y'wanna know where the whole Fourth Estate collapsed? When news became entertainment and when real journalists and real editors were made to kowtow to the marketing department of the networks. The second fatal blow was ABC losing the Food Lion lawsuit in '97. After that, the networks were far less willing to run investigative pieces if they thought there was even the slightest chance they can be sued for it. The third was the repeal of the Fairness in Broadcasting Act (read 'Sleepwalking Through History' by Haines Johnson for a very indepth look on why the repeal was the most important focus of the Reagan administration's early days and the poisonous dividends this historic mistake still pays to this day).
Real journalism will come back, but I believe it'll come back in a form closer to Stewart than Murrow.
However, it still takes guts for any journalist to admit Stewart is right, since the whole thing was an indictment of modern TV news reporting, specifically with regard to the economic crisis, though most of his commentary could have been (and has been) about the Iraq war and how the press handled that as well.
It looks like Tucker Carlson is taking a swing or three at Stewart, I guess he didn't get enough on Crossfire. TDS is going to have a lot of source material for the next week or so.
Maybe US Pundits and "Journalists" will realize they have to do their jobs. Hooray for Peter Mansbridge and dry Canadian news =)
I agree that this was necessary. However there is another perspective...
In financial reporting, the media is part of the story and can't be objective.
e.g. If the media report on a fire - it doesnt change the fire. But in Finances - if they report on even the 'potential' for a fire - the fire will start and rage out of control just because of the reporting. They create self fulfilling prophecy as the speculators react to their reporting.
This was a lose-lose situation:
If they report "Bear Stearns is tanking! the CEO is lying to me!" Then everyone pulls their money out and the value plummets. The slowest 50% of investors still lose their life savings.
If they report "Bear Stearns has dropped but it could recover" - maybe people invest thinking they'll make a profit and the stock stabilizes."
Regardless how this was reported - people were going to lose money. if the stock plummets because the company is hollow, or it plummets because investors panic from news reports - The result is the same.
The only real lesson from this is that the media should have a code of conduct to abstain from comment or 'advise' when their opinion could have an impact. Just admit - "We don't know".
>> ^raverman: If they report "Bear Stearns is tanking! the CEO is lying to me!" Then everyone pulls their money out and the value plummets.
Perhaps then they should simply report "Bear Stearns is tanking and the CEO is lying to me" anyway, despite the repercussions of the stock potentially falling. Then, perhaps the CEO will not be wont to lie to the media any longer.
Perhaps the consequences of lying to the public is exactly the bad tasting medicine CEO's and PR folks need to taste in their mouths.
Stumble This
In related news MSNBC was reportedly banned from covering the Cramer vs Stewart drama by its parent company.
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/03/13/cramer/index.html
It's sad when a comedian has to do the work that professional journalists should be doing.
But he's had to do it before...
In related news MSNBC was reportedly banned from covering the Cramer vs Stewart drama by its parent company.
That explains why Rachel Maddow's reporting of the interview seemed so odd, and why Olbermann failed to mention it at all, even though he'd made sure to mention Stewart's roast of Cramer in absentia during the days leading up to the interview.
I loved every minute of it.
Y'wanna know where the whole Fourth Estate collapsed? When news became entertainment and when real journalists and real editors were made to kowtow to the marketing department of the networks. The second fatal blow was ABC losing the Food Lion lawsuit in '97. After that, the networks were far less willing to run investigative pieces if they thought there was even the slightest chance they can be sued for it. The third was the repeal of the Fairness in Broadcasting Act (read 'Sleepwalking Through History' by Haines Johnson for a very indepth look on why the repeal was the most important focus of the Reagan administration's early days and the poisonous dividends this historic mistake still pays to this day).
Real journalism will come back, but I believe it'll come back in a form closer to Stewart than Murrow.
Upvote, despite the lack of a right sound channel. I hate that shit.
Freaked me out too, I gave my headphone jack a stern wiggling around for nothing.
However, it still takes guts for any journalist to admit Stewart is right, since the whole thing was an indictment of modern TV news reporting, specifically with regard to the economic crisis, though most of his commentary could have been (and has been) about the Iraq war and how the press handled that as well.
Maybe US Pundits and "Journalists" will realize they have to do their jobs. Hooray for Peter Mansbridge and dry Canadian news =)
In financial reporting, the media is part of the story and can't be objective.
e.g.
If the media report on a fire - it doesnt change the fire.
But in Finances - if they report on even the 'potential' for a fire - the fire will start and rage out of control just because of the reporting. They create self fulfilling prophecy as the speculators react to their reporting.
This was a lose-lose situation:
If they report "Bear Stearns is tanking! the CEO is lying to me!" Then everyone pulls their money out and the value plummets. The slowest 50% of investors still lose their life savings.
If they report "Bear Stearns has dropped but it could recover" - maybe people invest thinking they'll make a profit and the stock stabilizes."
Regardless how this was reported - people were going to lose money. if the stock plummets because the company is hollow, or it plummets because investors panic from news reports - The result is the same.
The only real lesson from this is that the media should have a code of conduct to abstain from comment or 'advise' when their opinion could have an impact. Just admit - "We don't know".
If they report "Bear Stearns is tanking! the CEO is lying to me!" Then everyone pulls their money out and the value plummets.
Perhaps then they should simply report "Bear Stearns is tanking and the CEO is lying to me" anyway, despite the repercussions of the stock potentially falling.
Then, perhaps the CEO will not be wont to lie to the media any longer.
Perhaps the consequences of lying to the public is exactly the bad tasting medicine CEO's and PR folks need to taste in their mouths.