Phil... are you saying the mainstream media are a reliable source of factual information?
People who paint the "mainstream media" as any one thing cheat themselves out of the truth and a more informative approach.
When someone says "mainstream media" what do he or she really mean? If I say it, it means one thing. If you say it, it probably means something else. If someone who does not like what is being reported by a particular news source or sources or the way it is being reported says "mainstream media" it probably means something different again.
Back in the day and in the ten years I was politically involved, I was interviewed by hundreds of newspaper, radio and TV journalists from local, state, national and international news organizations. I cannot recall a single time where I was misquoted or misrepresented by what ended up going in print or on the air.
If there was time, and there often was, I would interview the journalist after he or she was done interviewing me. It was not a for-publication interview but more like a visit to get to know the person. As often as I could, I asked how so-and-so reporter got his or her start and made it to one's current level; much as I inteview expediters today.
No one started at the top. Almost all of them went to school, majored in journalism, started out as a beat repoter someplace covering police frequencies or city council meetings. As their skills grew, talents were noticed, and opportunities were seized, they worked their way up.
I would also ask, if they could change anything about the media, what would it be? Almost to a person, the journalists had a longing to get back to straight reporting and investigative reporting, and get out from under the pressure to do/make news that would increase the size of the audience in a ratings-driven world populated by news organizations that were growing in number at an exponential rate.
With cable TV, talk radio and the internet, competition for readers, listeners and viewers is intense, as is the media temptation to build audiences by sensationalizing, simplifying and spinning the news like never before.
As idealistic young people, most of these folks chose journalism as a career with the idea of making a positive difference in the world by reporting the truth and getting the facts before the people, where the facts combined with people's willingness to get involved would serve as a force for good in the world.
With years of experience now under their belts, operating under pressure from their employers, and dealing several times a day with people who are not presenting facts but trying to spin stories and inject made-up information into the news stream, most of the journalists I met were saddened by the state of the media today. They also needed to eat and chose to keep their jobs instead of going to work as truck drivers.
I think one of the reasons I was always treated fairly by journalists was because I treated them fairly first. I never played one against another by offering an exclusive. I never gave one an unfair advantage over another if multiple journalists approached me for the news of the day. When I issued a news release, everyone got it at the same time so none could scoop the other.
We never leaked anything for any reason. No one ever heard the phrase in the news "a well-placed source in the Ventura administration" or "a Ventura official speaking on the condition of anomymity." When there was something to say, we said it in the open. That, combined with the genuine interest I showed in their life story and work challenges, produced a very good relationship that served me and them well.
In addition to one-on-one interviews, I have done and watched dozens of news conferences in progress, sat in on editorial huddle meetings where the content of tomorrow's newspaper is being discussed and decided upon, sat in capitol bureau news rooms and watched reporters from multiple news organizations do their work, and participated in conferences where journalists from all over the country come to learn more about and discuss their craft.
Reporters are as varied as any other group of human beings. I admire and wish I had their education and skills. They can sit through hours of committee meetings and at the end of the day (or sometimes at 3:00 a.m. when the meetings went that long) accurately sum up in a few paragraphs what went on at the meeting. Working under deadlines, they can observe and put events into a few words, and get it right most of the time. .
They are highly intelligent and perceptive people. You won't last long as a journalist if you cannot keep up intellectually with your editor and the people you interview. They are also hard workers, pouring endless hours every day and night into their craft and hunt for the news.
I also envy the insights they gain and views they form by covering everything they cover over the years. In courtroom settings, they look into the eyes of the serial killers they write about. When communities are wiped out by tornados they listen intently to the devastated people; not just the ones you see on TV but all of them as the reporters stand among the people and the debris. They see emergency responders -- some better than others -- in action. They see people react in different ways to the instant life changes that just happened.
Reporters not only cover but get to know well the politicians they see rise over the years. And they get to know them better as they also watch them fall. They have written or gone on air with hundreds of stories about hundreds of politicians and political events over the years. They watch politicians at committee meetings, news conferences and political party conventions. They interview them in their homes, follow or ride along with them on the campaign trail for days, weeks and even months at a time. At the capitol, they often sit at the same tables in the coffee shop and chat things up as both take a break from their work (though I have never met a reporter that would not go instantly to work if something newsworthy came up over coffee).
In other words, journalists have a better idea than most people about the community, state or nation they are covering. It is their job to know history and current events, and they are often live on the scene as the events are happening. Over the years, their interaction with people of all kinds and experience watching how government officials act in all sorts of situations creates fascinating people to get to know. The Minnesota journalists I grew friendly with knew the state and state politics better than the politicians they covered.
The notion of a "mainstream media" is one that would make most journalists laugh. With intense competition raging among hundreds of news outlets and each journalist knowing how very different one is from the others, "mainstream media" is not a concept many would accept without further defining the phrase.
It is a convenient shorthand for media critics to use, especially when they disagree with what is being reported and how. If you don't like what is going on, blame the media. It works every time.
That is not to say "the media" does not have its faults. Of course it does, just as the truck driving industry has its faults and the medical profession.
Journalism is a very human endeavor. To have perfect journalism, you will have to create perfect journalists, and to do that, you will have to create perfect humans. The last time that was tried it was by God himself and it ended when Eve took a bit out of the apple.
One other thing... if one of Bush's advisers ever said they misspoke about something, you're damm right the media would be digging in every nook and cranny trying to find a cover up. Now they're like "ok... we believe you."
Perhaps so with some journalists but absolutely not so with all of them. There are dozens if not hundreds of conservative-leaning and/or right-wing news organizations that are at this very moment digging and spinning and praying to find anything anti-Obama they can to feed their hungry audience of choice, and thereby increase their ratings and advertising revenues. Same with liberal and/or left-wing news organizations. You are speaking about "the media" as if it was some sort of united front. Clearly, it is not.
What should we expect from a media that has tingly feelings running down their leg over this guy?
Yes, there are reporters out there that have tingly feelings over Obama. There are also reporters that fear and despise the man. To get a true read on what is really going on out there, it is necessary to listen to both kinds, and the third kind that seeks to be objective and factual. Then subject all of what you hear to the scrutiny of the facts when the facts become known.
Like politicians, reporters develop track records too. Some are more faithful to the facts than others. Those are the ones to favor, are they not?
I can't trust them, so my info will have to come from ppl who care about exposing the truth. If it's from the internet, so be it.
Names? Web sites? Who are the people you trust as your news sources? Who are the people you trust to tell you the truth?
