In May 2012, the Washington Post published the findings of its deep dive into Mitt Romney’s past. The paper had been working on a big investigative journalism piece that would finally reveal what no one else could uncover about Romney. Utilizing the resources that only major dailies can marshal, and proudly speaking truth to power and defending the people’s right to know, the Post threw the 2012 election into pure chaos, upending everything voters thought they knew about the candidates.
Mitt Romney, as a youngster, once cut someone else’s hair.
It didn’t sound like such a bombshell at first blush, but then the Post–in a bid to make this as embarrassing as possible for the family of the victim–openly speculated about his sexuality. The family of the victim (who has since passed away), thoroughly humiliated by the Post’s behavior, denied the Post’s story and asked the newspaper to please stop spreading stories about their family “to further a political agenda.” Indeed, it was one of the low moments of the 2012 cycle. So why do I bring this up now? Because that same Washington Post reports today on a new Pew study showing that the media is increasingly echoing, instead of investigating, politicians. The Post, unsurprisingly, isn’t happy about this:
“Campaign reporters were acting primarily as megaphones, rather than investigators, of the assertions put forward by the candidates and other political partisans,” according to the report. “Only about a quarter of statements in the media about the character and records of the presidential candidates originated with journalists in the 2012 race, while twice that many came from political partisans.” …
When news organizations are pushed out of the information pipeline, voters alone are left to sort through messages that are tested in focus groups and opposition attacks tailored with great specificity. And on the heels of a presidential campaign in which one candidate’s pollster said he refused to let the campaign be dictated by fact-checkers, such a strategy is growing easier to execute.
The facts are these: Campaigns and candidates have more power than ever before to frame both their positive narrative and their opponents’ negative one. And, if the Pew numbers are right, both sides are spending much more time on the negative side of the ledger — at least in 2012.
Think of those numbers the next time you run down the role of the political media.
Yes, you think about that the next time you feel like complaining about front-page stories in papers like the Post. In fact, you’ll probably have that opportunity again soon, because like clockwork the Post identifies the Republican it deems most dangerous to the liberal agenda and fires off a gobsmackingly absurd–and often factually incorrect–story about them. The Post usually follows that story with an article about its previous story, in which it drums up a fake controversy and then drums up fake outrage about it.
The truth is, if the Post is unhappy about the press acting “as megaphones, rather than investigators,” it only has itself to blame. Before Romney was the target, Democrats felt threatened by Texas Governor Rick Perry. So the Post published a story meant to be damning toward Perry’s character, in which it breathlessly reported the existence of a hunting property leased by Perry’s family that once had a rock with a racial epithet painted on it but which no one can find today. Before the Post went after Perry, the paper decided to weigh in on the 2009 Virginia governor’s race by attacking Bob McDonnell’s 20-year-old college thesis and publishing about a story a day on it for the first week or so. McDonnell won the election easily, needless to say. And the Post tried to dig up dirt on Marco Rubio, found nothing, and pretended it found something anyway. The Post story was quickly debunked.
None of this is to suggest that modern newspapers publish only nonsense. They do plenty of good work. And the fading of investigative journalism–a function of tightening budgets and lack of resources, mainly–is to be mourned. But too often investigative journalism as currently practiced discredits just this kind of reporting–especially when election season rolls around.
Romney didn't deny the haircut incident. He said he couldn't remember it and apologized to the victim just in case. (Btw, I can well understand why the victim's family might deny the story.) Neither did Perry deny the hunting lodge story, so maybe you just didn't look for it hard enough. But I can understand why you hate the mainstream media since there's nothing mainstream about the GOP.
There is rather nothing mainstream about the media; having been a propaganda megaphone for the extreme left since the 1960s.
Both stories were perfect examples of perfectly irrelevant smears–even if true, they said nothing. Only a perfectly partisan idiot like you could not see that.
Who are you, HillelA? Your knee jerk responses have become so predictable, it feels more like a machine than the thoughts of a sentient human being appearing at the top of every comments section.
sure, that the reason may be that noone in the family remembers it couldn't possibly be allowed to get in the way of a partisan witch hunt–what's decency, what's privacy worth on the scale against cheap self-righteousness–less than Mary Jo Kopechne's honor left to drift into oblvion in the Chappaquiddick–another deep sixed scandal of yet another tawdry Democratic lion.
Why not jsut call the media Democrats and instead use the term DMM – Democratic Media Machine? They really are just operatives for the Democratic Party.
ShillelA, did you actually READ the article you linked to? Forbes noted the charges that were raised by WaPo, and then said n n"Perry is insisting that the sign was painted over when his family took over the lease of the camp. At this point it’s largely a matter of whose opinion you trust. In Perry’s defense, there is little to suggest that he is a racist and no reason to believe otherwise. The accounts of eyewitnesses from twenty or thirty years ago hardly prove anything. n nEither way, this is hardly damning evidence that Rick Perry had anything to do with or in any way supported the racist name of the camp which was named years before he or his family had anything to do with it. Like Doug Mataconis, I’m no Perry fan but “this story strikes me as much ado about nothing." n nAnd before you rush to say that Forbes tripped up Mandel on some irrelevant detail, note that the Forbes article does not say the rock can be found today, either. By you this is proof?
That WaPo feature on the Perry's leased hunting camp WAS a direct attempt to smear him as racist, even though the name on that rock turned out to be a fairly common place name in the 18th and 19th centuries with a nautical etymology. nFortunately, Jon Stewart smacked down the WaPo on Oct. 3, 2011 with a very funny bit ntitled "The Amazing Racism: Geographical Bigotry" n nBad enough that the pundits, including here, do it to candidates, but, if you put it on Page 1, it really should be NEWS or investigative journalism worthy of a real college term paper.
the rock-throwing attack was barely noticed in America. imagine if Israeli settlers had hurled rocks at a Palestinian family and caused a baby to be sent to the hospital in critical condition. Amnesty International and Jimmy Carter and J-Street would all be outraged, and Peter Beinart would be calling for a third intifada.
“None of this is to suggest that modern newspapers publish only nonsense.” n nFirst of all, what is up for discussion is not “nonsense”; the examples cited are deliberate hatch jobs, politically motivated consistently in service of promoting Liberalism and crushing any opposition to Liberalism. n nSay it! The Manipulated Story Machine is completely and thoroughly biased. Period. n nAny puny example to the contrary proves the rule. n nThis is not a problem; it is THE PROBLEM. n nOn account of this problem ALL discussion is affected by bias: n nIf one thinks homosexual acts are an abomination, he is publicly shamed for thinking so. n nIf one thinks that homosexual marriage is a depravity aimed directly at destroying the meaning and purpose of marriage as it has existed since time immemorial, one is more and more pushed to apologize for such a troglodyte view. n nIf one publicly questions Obama’s claim to be an American citizen and even his illegibility to be President – in view of the fact that the so called birth certificate posted White House web site has been clearly and thoroughly demonstrated to be a fraudulent forgery – that person is declared a racist and cast beyond the realms of being socially acceptable. n nIf one thinks that Israel is the most exemplary nation in the Middle East instead of the opposite, that is treated like blasphemy. n nLiberals are “Smart.” Joe Biden is really “smart” but sometimes he is just misunderstood, and at other times under appreciated. Todd Akin and Sarah Palin are “stupid” – not really for any particular human failing, but simply because they are not Liberal. (By the way, Sarah Palin and Todd Akin are geniuses compared to Joe Biden.) Such is the world that the MSM has fashioned for us. n nThe MSM is no longer a protector of freedom, but just the opposite. n n“None of this is to suggest that modern newspapers publish only nonsense.” Yeah, they also publish lottery results and the weather.
The MSM is ESPN for people who aren't interested in sports.
and then there was "macacca"