I wrote a diary recently which included an attack on the MSM for its seemingly habitual inability to relate the news without a bias that, more often than not, makes reporters appear to parrot recent scripts shared by the GOP and/or members of the media.
MissLaura posted a comment in that diary which eloquently distilled my feelings on the media:
Sources and facts. (14+ / 0-)
My take is that what blogs excel at is picking out the relevance of the array of facts provided, taking things and tying them together that are presented detached from each other. I look to question emphasis, slant, hegemonic framework, much more often than facts. Sometimes doing that leads us to facts that are not in fact facts. But even when all the facts are correct, there's still usually new meanings to be dragged out of them.
SusanG’s current front-page diary, We Are Women, Hear Us... Meow?,does an excellent job of calling bullshit on the WaPo description of the "catfight" between Pelosi and Harman. But the Washington Post article didn’t write itself.
Who wrote the offending article?
LOIS ROMANO.
She’s the one who gave us this brilliant political insight.
Catfight aftermath: Rep. Jane Harman is still quite irked that House Speaker-designee Nancy Pelosi nixed her for chairman of the House intelligence committee -- and she's not exactly being stoic about it.
Yup. Lois Romano is the one who wants her readers to believe that Nancy Pelosi – the highest ranking woman ever in American politics and someone who is third in line for the presidency – is embroiled in a "catfight." Like some girl gone wild.
But don’t worry. She didn’t mean it.
Honest, she didn't.
During a WaPo online chat – Post Politics Hour - Lois Romano did what all tough pundits do when someone calls them on their bullshit. Look at how she stands by her story when an online participant poses a question about it.
Sewickley, Pa.: Hello, and thank you for taking questions. Is it really appropriate to refer to a disagreement between two powerful women in Congress as a "catfight"? I came of age in the business world during the 1970s when women were routinely told during interviews for career track jobs that "we don't hire girls for those positions" the reason being that girls are temperamentally unsuited to positions of authority. Do you see a time--perhaps in my lifetime-- when a disagreement between powerful women will be characterized as something other than a "catfight"? Welcome to The Post political chats.
Lois Romano: Thank you for writing. We were just having a little fun.
That’s it. See SusanG – ya got all worked up for nothing. And the same goes for all you Kossacks who commented in her diary. Ya bunch of knuckleheads – Lois Romano was only goofin’ on Pelosi. Just funnin’ her. Dontchya know a journalistic noogie when ya feel one? Huh? Dontchya?
Lois Romano: Thank you for writing. We were just having a little fun.
Of course, if you go back and read the article it’s hard to find the disclaimer that Lois was only "having a little fun".
This reminds me of Margaret Carlson’s radio interview with Don Imus on "Imus in the Morning" on October 10, 2000. See, indulge in a moment of background - Our nation was preparing to elect the new inhabitant of the White House. We were trying to assess who would better lead us through any travails of the next four years – George W. Bush or Al Gore. It was a choice that I took seriously. I mean, what if something serious happened in America and we needed a president who understood diplomacy and international affairs. Heck, I would think that reporters and pundits would really take their job seriously and grill these two candidates.
Here’s what Margaret Carlson said to Imus about the kid glove treatment that Bush got while Gore was decried as a rich-kid liar who invented the Internet and was dull and boring.
CARLSON (10/10/00): Gore’s fabrications may be inconsequential—I mean, they’re about his life. Bush’s fabrications are about our life, and what he’s going to do. Bush’s should matter more but they don’t, because Gore’s we can disprove right here and now...You can actually disprove some of what Bush is saying if you really get in the weeds and get out your calculator or you look at his record in Texas. But it’s really easy, and it’s fun, to disprove Gore.
[...]
I actually happen to know people who need government and so they would care more about the programs, and less about the things we kind of make fun of... But as sport, and as our enterprise, Gore coming up with another whopper is greatly entertaining to us. And we can disprove it in a way we can’t disprove these other things.
Margaret Carlson thinks that writing about the election of a president is "sport" that is "greatly entertaining". Who cares about policies and programs?! Eew – she might have to get out her calculator.
Lisa Romano thinks she can debase learned women as participants in a "catfight". Who cares about their accomplishments?!
Here’s the rub – and no one should take this as a devaluation of SusanG’s points in her diary – Lisa Romano seems to frequently "have a little fun" like this regardless of gender. Let’s took a look at who she has had some fun with in the past.
She has helped reinforce the script that John Kerry was a phony who would do anything for a vote. In Democrat Hunts for Votes – and Prey she writes this:
Clearly concerned about his low rating from the National Rifle Association -- he got an F on the NRA's last report card, and it is running ads in key states against him -- Kerry often makes a point during his stump speech of announcing that he owns guns.
Thursday morning, he happily emerged from the duck blind toting a Mossberg 835 Ulti Mag-pump action 12-gauge shotgun, but someone else was carrying his dead prey. "I'm too lazy," Kerry joked, adding that he was still "giddy" over the pennant victory Wednesday night of his beloved Boston Red Sox, catapulting the team into the World Series.
Twenty-five reporters and cameramen were taken on the carefully staged event, but none saw Kerry shoot anything. They were kept quite a distance away.
What they did see, however, was a glorious photo opportunity: Kerry emerging from the blind, victorious with the other men, perfectly outfitted in hunting gear.
Sounds like John Kerry was "having a little fun" but Lois didn't see it that way. But if we accused Lois of "slant" or "framework" (to use MissLaura’s words), she might backpedal and tell us she was just "having a little fun."
In Kerry Unveils Ad Countering Attacks Over Vietnam, she let’s us know who supports Kerry and who supports Bush.
On Long Island, N.Y., Saturday night, a group of wealthy supporters cried, "Fight back, fight back," as Kerry spoke. And yesterday, former senator Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.), whose right arm was disabled during World War II, attacked Kerry, agreeing with critics. "One day he's saying that we were shooting civilians, cutting off their ears, cutting off their heads, throwing away his medals or his ribbons," Dole said on CNN's "Late Edition." "The next day he's standing there, 'I want to be president because I'm a Vietnam veteran.' Maybe he should apologize to all the other 2.5 million veterans who served. He wasn't the only one in Vietnam."
And then there’s Hil. In Beyond the Poll Numbers, Voter Doubts About Clinton, Lois Romano reminds us what we should think about HRC. Oh... and she kinda reminds us that Hil’s a she not a he.
Still, supporters say the powerful scrutiny she faces means that, far more than the typical politician, she has little room for public error or spontaneity, since even casual comments often draw national headlines. In addition, some political analysts believe that politicians who are women must work harder to be perceived as strong and serious.
Finally, those who have worked with her say that, unlike her husband, who easily conveys empathy and familiarity, Clinton is instinctively more reserved and harder to get to know.
The result is a public portrait of Clinton as highly self-contained. In an era when images of politicians biking or jogging are used to give them another dimension, she is rarely seen doing anything personally revealing.
[...]
The hope among her advisers is that she can do nationally what she did in New York in 2000. Then, she faced questions about why she was running in a state where she had never previously lived, and whether she was interested in the job solely as a springboard to the presidency. Clinton also faced more piercing questions -- including from many women -- about the state of her marriage in the wake of the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal. Was she staying with her husband simply for politics?
[...]
Even her physical appearance was long unsettled. First ladies generally show up at the White House with a dependable style, but Clinton routinely changed hers. Only in recent years has she put forth a fairly reliable professional look, almost always wearing pantsuits and keeping her hair short and blond.
What about Obama, you say? Lois has some thoughts there too. Hard to tell if she’s just "having a little fun" or not. Here’s how she opened her recent piece In Effect of Obama's Candor Remains to Be Seen:
Long before the national media spotlight began to shine on every twist and turn of his life's journey, Barack Obama had this to say about himself: "Junkie. Pothead. That's where I'd been headed: the final, fatal role of the young would-be black man. . . . I got high [to] push questions of who I was out of my mind."
[...]
Obama's revelations were not an issue during his Senate campaign two years ago. But now his open narrative of early, bad choices, including drug use starting in high school and ending in college, as well as his tortured search for racial identity, are sure to receive new scrutiny.
Yup – they’ll surely receive new scrutiny. Because Lois Romano, one of the Washington Post’s knuckle-draggers, will be there to scrutinize every senseless word of this mindless script.
And if shining the media spotlight on Obama’s drug use isn’t enough, Lois Romano suggests that Obama might just be the next Howard Dean (which, in her eyes, is a questionable thing). In an interview with John Stewart on the January 3 [2007] edition of MSNBC's The Most, this is what the WaPo's Fun Master has to say.
STEWART: That is -- that is an excellent point. We were talking this morning, the Drudge Report is suggesting there's going to be this New York Times report that Sen. Hillary Clinton's camp thinks her two biggest contenders here are Senator Obama and former Senator Edwards. Edwards vetted last time around, and Senator Obama really has a long road ahead of him in terms of digging up his past, doesn't he?
ROMANO: He does, and you know, one good analogy would be to take a look at Howard Dean at this time. I mean, he was getting unsurpassed support from first-time involvers -- I mean, people who hadn't voted. I mean, he was just exciting people. And as the campaign wore on, he didn't wear as well. I mean, he was shown to have a short fuse. He -- and we all remember the scene in Iowa when he started screaming when he lost. And so, that's the kind of things -- you know, voters are not going to be totally focused on whether he has experience or not, although that's going to be somewhat of an issue, but I think they're going to look at how he comports himself over these next two years.
Surely, by now, you must be wondering if there's ANYONE that Lois likes.
You don’t have to look for to find her tale of Scooter Libby who, much to Lois’ surprise, managed to get himself all tangled up with the CIA leak. I mean, bygosh and bygolly, she went to Mary Matalin to get to the bottom of things. Yup, Mary helped Lois form her opinion of Scooter in Known for Discretion, Libby Is A Surprising Figure in CIA Leak.
"He has no sense of entitlement, no sense that he's been victimized. Just an attitude of 'circumstances have to be dealt with,' " said Mary Matalin, a friend and former White House colleague, who spoke to Libby over the weekend. "He knows he has got a job to do, and he will get it done. . . . Whining is not in his lexicon."
Matalin described Libby's friends as "crushed" by the turn of events -- and all of those interviewed expressed bewilderment that a man so meticulous, so discreet, so smart -- could end up in this situation. The investigation was triggered when news outlets reported that Plame, the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV -- a very vocal White House critic on the war -- was a CIA operative.
[...]
He also built a reputation in Washington as a self-effacing public servant, more interested in service than power, more interested in dealing with terrorism than pushing a political agenda. "Despite what you read, Scooter Libby is not an ideologue," said another longtime friend who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "He was very much a pragmatist."
It is for this reason that those who know him are astonished that a quiet guy who writes fiction and is interested in poetry, and who strove to stay under the radar screen, is now viewed as a guy who talked too much to reporters, and who concocted a story to cover up his role in the revealing of Plame.
So see. We have to know who the voices are behind the stories. It is incumbent upon us to recognize who these people are and why we must highlight their fun-filled reporting. Lois Romano is just one of many of these reporters who want to make you and I look like fools. She has no respect for us. As with Margaret Carlson she probably even knows "people who need government" and who "would care more about the programs" but she can’t be bothered to get out her calculator or actually discuss what our newly elected leaders plan to do with the power we have given them. To the Lois Romanos of the world, reporting for the Washington Post is just a way for her to have some fun.
And before I leave you, there is one person who admires Lois Romano’s work.
Rush Limbaugh... Even if he does think it’s okay to call her a "reporterette."
All right, there's a story here from The Washington Post, Lois Romano, who've I've -- I've dealt with Lois Romano, but she was pretty good. Pretty good reporterette.
I doubt that Lois would get angry with Rush for that little comment. He’s probably just "having a little fun."