D.C.-based journo Julian Sanchez has articulated what many of us have been thinking for the last few years: that there is a new news cycle at play. He calls it, appropriately, the “new news cycle” and invokes, without actual mention, a few hot-button news ghosts of the past (birthers, deathers, Panthers) and present (mosque/community center/jihadist headquarters).
From his blog post yesterday:
The steps are:
1. Faux Story
2. Why is the Em-Ess-Em ignoring this huge Faux Story?
3. After days or weeks of flood-the-zone coverage across multiple conservative media outlets, some significant portion of the base is convinced that the faux story is true and/or significant.
4. Mainstream press takes note of (3) and speculates about the political and electoral consequences
5. Panicked Democrats react as though the faux story is true and/or significant
6. See, we told you it was a huge story!
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Of course, this does not represent all new “news” stories. There are, occasionally, still news pegs and happenings that drive the cycle. But it’s a nice take on those stories churned out of the FNC mill.
We might add a point 4.1: newspaper ombudsmen apologize for not covering the story after their desk is deluged with handwritten and chopped-up-magazine-pasted notes.
And a 4.2: the CJR team sits in the Executive Editor’s office and wrings their hands about what angle to take on the story that shouldn’t have been.
And a 5.1: the “Em-Ess-Em” (ugh, them again) reacts to the Democrat reactions.
And a 5.2: Halperin, Allen et al take to the airwaves. Whoopi and the gals weigh in.
Oh and heck, a 5.3 also: someone unexpected, usually a Republican, veers off message and acknowledges the whole thing for what it is, “small potatoes.”
Anything you’d like to add?
I guess the above, uh, 'analysis' believes there is some objective, Platonic idea of what is 'news', the essence of which is granted those ordained creatures, MSM editors and reporters. Maybe the consumers (i.e., the dirty rabble who pay journalists' salaries) have something to do with determining what news is, too. And maybe those editors' notions of 'news' are skewed by their own petty prejudices, as I'm reliably informed that such people are human beings, just like consumers. Don't want to bruise to many egos at CJR, but - get over yourselves.
As usual, this piece is not about journalistic practice. It is about partisan politics, preaching to CJR's liberal choir. So why should anyone not already convinced take it seriously? Has the MSM ever given a big ride to 'liberal' stories that turned out to be ephemeral or 'astroturf' in their legitimacy and authenticity? If you really, earnestly say 'no', I'm prepared to patiently begin your education, since apparently Columbia's PC courses have shielded you all from the kinds of practices you deplore in Fox.
#1 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 25 Aug 2010 at 12:16 PM
JournoList?..
Anyone? Anyone?
Bueller?....
Wait... I guess that's "faux news"....
#2 Posted by padikiller, CJR on Wed 25 Aug 2010 at 02:48 PM
Oh, and Joel, since you ask if there is anything to add, you forgot the mechanical, reflexive efforts by media munchkins to stuff the 'faux' news (your own language gives away the herd instinct of MSM people, operating at the intellectual level of a Daily Kos poster) into that little box of 'enlightenment and tolerance' vs. 'bigotry and hatred' as a way of marginalizing the MSM's political opponents by control of discourse - something you take your political enemies to task for doing. The world is really very simple in Mainstream Medialand - there is a small, embattled minority of people doing battle with the ignorant masses in the name of Progress, a concept which is the exclusive property of the Democratic Party. More complexity than that, J-school graduates are apparently not taught. More about American politics since about 1968, their professors have not learned. As for consumers, let 'em eat cake. The article is a good illustration (unintentional, of course) of the mentality that is helping marginalize the influence of the old-line press.
#3 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 26 Aug 2010 at 07:04 AM
Speaking as a non-American, yes, this does seem to be accurate judging by appearances from the other side of the pond.
and yes, you all look quite silly running around like chicken little.
#4 Posted by A Lurker, CJR on Thu 26 Aug 2010 at 07:40 AM
And a 6.0 Rightwing trolls populate the comment threads, flogging the non-story and accusing the Em Ess Em of liberal bias and journolistism for ignoring it, bitterly sputtering their long list of grievances, to which the new non-story has been added.
#5 Posted by James, CJR on Thu 26 Aug 2010 at 09:02 AM
What a load of crap. If you want to talk about hyped "faux" news, start with the lie that protesters shouted the n-word at congressmen during protests about the health care vote. Despite multiple cameras and angles (Jesse Jackson Jr. had two video cameras rolling!), there is exactly zero evidence that the accusations are true. Yet morons in the press continue to repeat the lie.
Or the "faux" news that FNC was out to get Shirley Sherrod, even though her name was not mentioned on the network until hours after she'd already been fired.
And how about the real news stories that are ignored by the mainstream press? Kennth Gladney, anyone? Just reverse roles: a liberal black man beat up by conservative white goons, all caught on camera. We'd still be reading the stories now.
Get over yourself. You still seriously wonder why you're all losing your jobs?
#6 Posted by Buzz, CJR on Thu 26 Aug 2010 at 10:55 AM
Geez, and today we're treated to yet another example of a lib-manufactured faux news story, this time about the cabbie attacked in NY, apparently because of the protests of the Cordoba mosque. Sorry, that's now inoperative. Turns out the attacker works for an organization that supports the mosque.
Eagerly awaiting all the leftwing "news" outlets to retract their "story" now.
#7 Posted by Buzz, CJR on Thu 26 Aug 2010 at 11:28 AM
To our sophisticated Lurker, the anti-Burka crusade in France (which passed the National Assembly with only one dissenting vote) looks quite silly from this 'side of the pond', too. The Swiss banned minarets altogether last year. Weary Americans are used to attempts at condescension by faux-worldly Europeans - who have a history of behaving even worse than we do in the U.S. when issues racial/cultural/political complexity land on their own doorsteps.
The protests were initially raised by families of the dead at Ground Zero, something the above article and others keep avoiding. Unless you are a member of that group, I'd advise you not to get in over your head when it comes to preening in the faces of genuine victims of Islamic radicalism. These stories always go straight to self-exhibitions of moral and/or intellectual superiority by a certain type of urban poser. This is 'ad hominem' politics - the rightness or wrongness of an issue is a function not of its merits or demerits on the face of it, but of what 'types of people' are ranged on either side.
#8 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 26 Aug 2010 at 01:18 PM
James, good example of sophisticated and remorselessly intelligent response to arguments put forward by your political adversaries. No wonder the Left is losing (again); they project on and display the exact faults they purport to expose in others.
#9 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Thu 26 Aug 2010 at 01:21 PM
Mark Richard
As a copy editor, I must correct one point: it's poseur, not poser. The latter is a tough question. Ther first is, well, exactly as you describe, our oh-so-morally superior betters on the Left.
#10 Posted by Buzz, CJR on Thu 26 Aug 2010 at 01:46 PM
To be frank, I don't know how to react to your story, but it was good.
http://www.wellnessstarts.com/paraslim-force-review.html
#11 Posted by Luke Ford, CJR on Sat 28 Aug 2010 at 03:21 AM