PSoTD

There's a concerted effort to change your behavior. Guess what? It's popular! If that fails, there will likely be a concerted effort to have you canned.

About Russert and Matthews and their ilk:

Among journalists, there's a deep sense of pride in the craft of journalism - I just attended a luncheon yesterday with some old practitioners, and they are proud of the work they do. And honestly, much of it is excellent excellent work. And they are keen to talk ethics, and blogging, and print journalism. But whenever I bring up TV, and especially cable TV, immediately reporters throw up their hands and avoid responsibility. They say things like "Chris Matthews is an asshole" or "Don't engage him" or "Fox News isn't what I do", as if the American public's responsibility to police the craft of journalism that they take so much pride in policing.

...

That same standard is NEVER applied to bloggers - are they journalists, are they reporters, are they mean people on the internet - there's endless handwringing about that question, and a deep sense that this-is-a-very-important issue-that-we-must-all-talk-and-fret-abo ut. Well, that's fine, except that if you believe you belong to a craft, and there is a self-policing mechanism, you have to actually self-police.

That means asking the same questions of Chris Matthews and Tim Russert as you ask of bloggers and journalists. I don't see that happening. And since television is an immensely powerful medium that dominates our discourse, I find it fairly irresponsible that there is such a lack of discouse.

It is time for a bipartisan blogger chat roundtable on the ethics of cable news programming. Hear that, Washington Post? I won't complain this time if you invite Instapundit...

Daddy will promote you even though it is clear you're getting the gig only because I'm your Daddy.

Oh, I'm sure the Thanksgiving gettogethers 25 years from now will fun in the Russert household. Timmeh, long shoveled off to the scrapbin of has-beens, bobbing his evergrowing head at his son, reminiscing how he made him what he was today...

It's here. The idea that you should include a blog (Instapundit) that doesn't allow comments in a discussion about comments is moronic, and Brady's responses to why Instapundit was included never gets past that problem. Try to use experts with experience in the subject. Bleh.

By the way, Jeff Jarvis of Buzzmachine, who was also in the discussion, has a great point about something important the Post failed to do: include Deborah Howell.

and they admit it in print, then you reassign them.

Nothing in my 50-year career prepared me for the thousands of flaming e-mails I got last week over my last column, e-mails so abusive and many so obscene that part of The Post's Web site was shut down.

No doubt, many in the press, probably most, will support Deborah Howell and her pantywaist whining of how she was mistreated by bloggers for making a simple mistake. Oh, she is the poor abused ombudsman at the Washington Post.

But the whole goddamn key to the problem is right here:

Going forward, here's my plan. I'll watch every word. I'll read every e-mail and answer as many legitimate complaints as I can.

What is the Washington Post doing hiring as the ombudsman a person who didn't know this was the requirement of the job going in? Why did it take a firestorm for Deborah Howell to realize she should watch every word when responding to complaints? How can she be so ignorant in her understanding of today's hyper-partisan world that when commenting on an issue within that world, she has to have everything as absolutely right as possible? This wasn't just bad writing. It was bad understanding as well.

The problem isn't Howell. The problem is that the Washington Post isn't taking this job seriously enough. That's why there is a firestorm. Hopefully, all newspapers will learn a lesson from this, or suffer similar occurrences.

Finally, there's this snide comment by Howell:

To all of those who wanted me fired, I'm afraid you're out of luck. I have a contract. For the next two years, I will continue to speak my mind.

To that I would say, if such a paragraph is what is on your mind, you probably shouldn't count your chickens before they're hatched. Just because you have a contract doesn't mean the Post will continue to give you the venue. Continue to hack around in these issues and you'll be about as valuable to the Post as used tissue. A simple "I made a mistake, I admit it, I will try to learn from it, and I'm open to fair suggestions" goes a lot farther for the longterm purposes of the Washington Post than the public whining about how so many mean emails and blog posts were made about you.

Thank you sir, may I have another...

God, the news media is full of babies. The Washington Post. The New York Times. CNN. Waaah, waaah, bloggers say mean things about us. Waaaah, waaaah, they say we're not doing our job right. Waaah waaah waaah.

You would think that organizations with so much money and power would be a little more thick-skinned about the upstart news dissemination process, but maybe they always knew that their business and power models were built more on alchemy than science, and this was the moment they always feared, the days when news consumers created their own distribution models and no longer were dependent on any particular primary source. They sure are shrill about the criticisms. So what.

Make 'em cry.

New Zogby Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Impeaching Bush for Wiretapping

We'll see how long - or if ever - the major news outlets cover this poll, and what should be several resulting stories.

That means CNN, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, ABC, CBS, Chicago Tribune, LA Times....

Hmmm. Specter said the "I" word on ABC's This Week.

Good news for those who think Kate O'Beirne is a shining light for interesting reading. And for the paper recycling industry.

I wanted to find out the number of times each journalist or pundit was on Meet the Press in 2005, but I'm not going through the whole year's worth of archives of Russert's show to guarantee a perfect count. This may be undercounting, but I took it from the transcript summaries: 92 appearances over the course of the year by 45 individuals. Here's the individual number of events by person:

7 - David Broder, Washington Post
6 - John Harwood, Wall Street Journal
4 - William Safire, New York Times
4 - Jon Meacham, Newsweek
4 - Gwen Ifill, PBS
4 - Eugene Robinson, Washington Post
4 - Judy Woodruff
3 - Kate O'Beirne, National Review
3 - Byron York, National Review
3 - Katty Kay, British Broadcasting Corporation
3 - David Gregory, NBC News
3 - E.J. Dionne, Washington Post
3 - Nina Totenberg, NPR
3 - David Brooks, New York Times
2 - Stephen Hayes, Weekly Standard
2 - Robin Wright, Washington Post
2 - Andrea Mitchell, NBC News
2 - Patrick Buchanan, author
2 - Maureen Dowd, New York Times
2 - Tom Friedman, New York Times
2 - Mike Allen, Washington Post
2 - Ron Brownstein, Los Angeles Times
1 - Evan Thomas, Newsweek Magazine
1 - Al Hunt, Bloomberg News
1 - Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historial
1 - Brian Williams, NBC Nightly News
1 - Dana Priest , The Washington Post
1 - Joe Klein, Time Magazine
1 - Paul Krugman, New York Times
1 - Dexter Filkins, New York Times
1 - Jim Miklaszewski, NBC News
1 - Thomas Cahill
1 - James Carville
1 - Mary Matalin
1 - Paul Gigot, The Wall Street Journal
1 - Pete Williams
1 - Matt Cooper
1 - Bob Woodward
1 - Carl Bernstein
1 - Stuart Taylor
1 - Dan Balz
1 - George Packer
1 - Frank Rich
1 - Tom Brokaw
1 - Ted Koppel

Essentially, Meet the Press averaged less than 1 different news industry person per show. The top 7 news "guests" totaled 33 appearances, leaving 59 appearances for the remaining 38 individuals. Is this really the way to dig for news and fresh thoughts on the issues? Is this really what Timmy Russert thinks is good for discussion in America?

Or is this just what is good for the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and Newsweek? Timmy rubs their backs, they rub his with positive prose about his program? Aren't there other people in America that are covering important stories on less fabled newspapers? Apparently winning a Pulitzer prize won't get you any face time on Meet the Press, for either a reporter or the newspaper.

Why is it that journalists that do real reporting - such as Dana Priest - are far outnumbered in their appearances by partisan commentators such as Kate O'Beirne?

The sad thing is, you can almost count on the same kind of distribution again next year, short of a Broder illness or John Harwood deciding he'd rather solo on Fox. It's the same old moldy beltway medicine show America's been fed by NBC for several years now, a pablum of showtime garnished to look like real political meat and potatos, and it is time that bloggers start hammering NBC for doing the same ole, same ole, when the same ole is some of the cheesiest crap on television.

Fixing Meet the Press cannot start with somehow trying to get Russert or his guests to ask "the right questions." It is a problem of structure, and a problem of personnel choices, and a problem of intent. We have to deconstruct the show, point out the structural flaws that lead to such unimproved content, and try to show the options that may lead to a better product. Unfortunately for NBC, one of the biggest problems is the program management currently in place, including Russert. They've obviously found a formula that's easy for them, and have little incentive to change it. Want to change the program? First step is to get rid of that program management.

Sirius satellite radio is a subscription service. It's not free radio. I'm not a big Howard Stern fan, but why the hell does USA Today publish the letter of the lemmingchild of Pat Robertson who thinks he can determine God's mood? Is that where USA Today's market is?

This is just a beginning - notes jotted down. More later.

Diversify the program. Other than government junkies, this show is boring. Go beyond government officials and beltway pundits to talk about government. Example: How about having the NFL and NBA commissioners on and asking them political questions, including the rise of athletes using their fame to run for office?

Use journalists and editors from outside DC/New York corridor. No journalist appears on any roundtable more than 2 times per year.

Spend at least 5 minutes dedicated in every show to clear up statements from prior program.

Moderator does not ask questions, only moderates the process. Bring in real journalists to ask questions.

Rule of thumb - do not have any politician as a guest more than once per year.

Rotate the moderators.

Create a question forum group of 30 or more state capital newspaper editors, and ask them to suggest guests, subjects and questions. Set aside 10 minutes of the program to ask some of these questions.

Ask questions of the public. Show their responses, via email or mail, the next week. Only full name, city state attribution allowed.

No more "holiday shows", either cancel that broadcast or do real news coverage.

Maybe bloggers underestimate their collective power. In the philosophical words of The Rocky Horror Picture Show:

"Don't dream it - be it."

Specifically, perhaps it is time that bloggers reduce the simple complaining about the news media, and increase the diligentl loud, constant recommendiation of improvements to the news media. Of course, improvements require a criticism - there is no point in trying to fix something that requires no improvement - but the point is, focus on the improvement, rather than the criticism.

And so I'm suggesting that bloggers try to do that - constructive criticism of the news media - and in particular, one product of that news media. Of course, the news industry is huge, and the possible suggested improvements are even a larger universe, so if bloggers continue to do this individually, without focusing the energy and creativity and intelligence on a particular item, perhaps no traction will be achieved.

Mind you, this is an experiment of the blogosphere. Those of you that have your own blogs, I'm asking you to think about the question I'm about to set, and post about it in your blog the next two weeks, and post the URL of your post in comments here. Those of you without blogs that choose to answer the question, I'm asking you to post in comments. On Friday the 20th I'll post a compilation of the ideas and suggestions. Perhaps we, as members of the blogosphere, can make a point to the news industry that as users of their product, we have ideas of how to improve their product, and are ready to promote those ideas.

Let's start small. Let's call this "Fixing Meet The Press Friday". You're the NBC executive in charge of Meet the Press, and you have free reign to change anything on the program other than the time slot and the requirement to sell advertising. What do you do, and why do you do it?

Any change you make has to have the twin goals of increasing viewership (and therefore advertising revenues) and improving newsworthiness. It could be a small change, it could be big changes, but you have to keep in mind these goals.

What would make this a valuable experiment in blogtopia is if many - MANY - bloggers participate. It is one thing if five blogs suggest improvements and changes for Meet the Press. It becomes more interesting - and more of a living process - if 25-30 do. The more the merrier, the more ideas, the more promise the process shows. Can we make a difference in the news media?

I'll post my ideas about improving Meet the Press in the next week or so. But I hope you do as well. Let's not dream of changing television political news coverage - let's be it.

Crossposted at DailyKos

Today's question:

What newsperson would be your choice to replace Tim Russert on Meet the Press?

Dear Timmy,

I see the nation has this segment to look forward to this Sunday on Meet the Press:

And with the Supreme Court and personal privacy in the spotlight, we will host a debate over the issue of abortion and the meaning of "feminism" with two female authors with two very different views: Kate Michelman, author of, "With Liberty and Justice for All: A Life Spent Protecting the Right to Choose" and Kate O'Beirne, author of "Women Who Make the World Worse and How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports."

Timmy, Timmy, Timmy... I knew you were a wuss, but letting a hack like O'Beirne siren her negative echo on your show? I actually thought you were a bigger star than that.

Since you have her on, I have a suggested question for Kate O'Beirne - did she decide to write this book as it is before, or after, Bernard Goldberg's book that came out last summer?

Oh, and an aside - isn't it funny how the "liberal" has a positive approach to her title, but the conservative has to attack her opponent? I think that's pretty much all you have to know...

Well, other than O'Beirne's living caricature status.

Many news companies have recognized they have some fault and/or problems that were revealed by the Sago Mine "news reporting" on Tuesday/Wednesday.

With one notable exception...

Len Downie, executive editor of the The Washington Post, defended the media. "Our story was a reflection of what was being said at the time," said Downie. "I don't regard it as our error, but as an error by the people in charge of the rescue."

The Post's account, which stated flatly that the miners "were found alive," also appeared in many other newspapers that subscribe to the Post's news service.

There are a lot of people that ought to feel very guilty about last night's reversal of news in the West Virginia mine accident, but CNN and MSNBC should be publicly investigating how they failed so miserably last night. Both news organizations spent most of their on-air resources the past few days covering the mine disaster, yet were unable to show any more news coverage maturity than a shopping mall gossip when the rumor broke that the miners had survived. I can't even imagine how heartbreaking it must be for a family member or friend of a miner, to have what you believe is a legitimate news organization trumpeting the survival of almost all the miners, just to have that news proven absolutely false within hours.

What is the point of CNN and MSNBC spending such news resource and airtime on such a story? How much money do they need to throw at a story to get the coverage right - because they didn't do it right this time.

Here's a question for America - if this is the best that CNN and MSNBC can do in providing accurate coverage when they throw their full primetime resources into a story, how inaccurate is their coverage for the stories that receive less resources?

Also weighing in: The Galvin Opinion, Trust but Verify, Zigzagger, sisu...

Chris Wallace likes catnip. Give him catnip all day long, he'll play with it and purr and run around the studio like crazy, he likes himself the catnip. Mmmm, Republican catnip. Mmmmm, give him those conservative talking points. Mmmmmm. Catnip. Prrrrrrrr.

Look to this "under the influence of Republican catnip" question by Wallace. Think about the assumptions he makes within the question.

WALLACE: Senator Schumer, we're in the middle of a war. We have an enemy that doesn't play by any rules. Do you really want to limit the president's ability to protect Americans?

Assumptions:

It is the President, and the President alone, that has the responsibility to protect Americans.

There are no rules for the President when fighting an enemy that doesn't play by any rules.

Following the law is less safe for Americans.

Would Catnip Chris believe the same if John Kerry were President? Al Gore? How about Al Sharpton?

Of course, Schumer gave a legitimate but borrrrrrrrring response to the question, very Senatorial, something slow. Here's how Schumer should respond to Catnip Chris: Does Chris Wallace really want to limit the Congress's ability to make sure that Americans are safe? Or does Chris Wallace not believe that the Congress should have any say in this matter any longer?

Here's a clue for Democrats going on to Fox News - they have already figured out what your answer is, and have figured up a followup question to continue their sabotage. Quit playing by this stupid ass script. Don't let Catnip Chris question your patriotism. Question his - because every damn show he does makes many of us wonder if he's American or just Conservative.