The Media is Angry... And I Don't Care

Howard Kurtz says the MSM is angry. Sigh...

The media are getting mad.

Whether it's the latest back-and-forth over attack ads, the silly lipstick flap or the continuing debate over Sarah and sexism, you can just feel the tension level rising several notches.

Maybe it's a sense that this is crunch time, that the election is on the line, that the press is being manipulated (not that there's anything new about that).

News outlets are increasingly challenging false or questionable claims by the McCain campaign, whether it's the ad accusing Obama of supporting sex-ed for kindergartners (the Illinois legislation clearly describes "age-appropriate" programs) or Palin's repeated boast that she stopped the Bridge to Nowhere (after she had supported it, and after Congress had effectively killed the specific earmark).

Oh, yes, the media is angry, because the voters are being misled. Good thing the media is here to save us.

I'm not going to waste time debunking the stupid claims regarding the sex ed bill and the Bridge to Nowhere in the last paragraph, since Geraghty has already done so here and here. Strategically, I'm not sure why McCain thought the former worthy of an ad, although the media's group defense response of "Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!" makes me wonder if the ad is more effective than I think. Likewise, I'm not sure why Obama thought attacking Palin on the bridge made sense, when he and his running mate both voted for it.

But back to the point -- I have a better theory on why the media is angry. Actually, let's have Julie Ponzi explain a bit...

In my experience, the leader of the U.S. media is the New York Times. Other newspapers and TV news organizations read the Times and follow suit. Indeed, TV reporters sometimes learn their agenda for the day by reading the Times. That model worked for quite some time, but it is breaking down. It is now becoming obvious that the "Mainstream media" (MSM) is no such thing. Moreover, thanks to the internet (and talk radio before that, but the internet, by providing more access to independent reporting has helped talk radio make news, rather than simply comment on it), it is getting harder and harder for a reporter to know what’s going on by following only the major newspapers and magazines.

In short, the gate-keeper role of the Times (and in politics The Washington Post) in particular, and of the old media establishment, is dying. Note Kurtz’s comment, "The lipstick imbroglio is evidence that the Drudge/Fox/New York Post axis can drive just about any story into mainstream land." (Mickey Kaus had a very intelligent discussion of this change about a week ago).

But there is one more, and, as far as I can tell, little discussed, element to the story: and that is the human dynamic. Put yourself in the shoes of a reporter for the New York Times or The Washington Post. He or she has worked hard for many years to reach the top of a particular hill. And just when he gets there, he finds that the hill is a much less important one than it was before.

Moreover, he suddenly finds that rogues and upstarts of whom he has never heard, and who have not put the years in, in the blogosphere, are getting more attention, and are more important than he. Combine that with the sad state of the news business, and there’s a real prolem. Each week, he hears of old friends and colleagues losing their jobs because the newspapers and perhaps networks too, can’t afford to pay them. If you’re 45 or so, and have just made it, and perhaps have a couple of kids who want to go to college, it’s going to cause grey hairs and ulcers.

Allow me to expand on this idea a bit. The media's frustration stems in large part from the loss of power -- they used to tell us what was important, and now they don't control the reins anymore.

Fundamentally, this is a good thing. Rather than a few voices determining what constitutes a story and tightly controlling access to information, we now have an opportunity for the marketplace to determine what constitutes a story that's newsworthy. Some may believe that this has created a situation where we see news networks competing in a race to the bottom of the sewer, but I think this misses the point.

Competition tends to make any industry better, and this is true of the news as well. Back in the day when your news came from the New York Times, Walter Cronkite and a few other evening news anchors, there was very little competition. When there's not as much competition, people don't work as hard to provide the best product possible.

Some people think the news as a product has declined in quality because of the additional competition, where some news sources have become far more likely to provide opinion as part of the news. I think they miss the fundamental point -- opinion has always been part of the news that has been reported, but now it's far more overt. And the disclosure of that opinion allows the consumer to determine the credibility of the news source.

In a way, this is why the traditional media is suffering today -- everyone knows there's bias, but they act like they're objective news sources reporting things in a straightforward manner. There's always bias that manifests itself, either consciously or unconsciously (see an interesting post from Megan McArdle on this point). I surf the web for the majority of my news, and there are news sources I trust to varying degrees. But I usually know their point of view and can make a judgment about their credibility up-front. And bias does not mean that a particular site is wrong when it reports a story -- it just means that I know before I read the story the chances that an agenda are present.

Kurtz's column is a good example of why I lack trust in a number of supposedly reputable news sources. Note the frustration about the press being "manipulated" and "false claims" being spread by the McCain campaign. The press is terribly frustrated that they have to spend time debunking stories about Obama being a closet sexist... but I don't recall such frustration when the Washington Post ran story after story after story on George Allen's macaca moment in 2006. I know the press wants to focus on "important" issues, which is why the Politico asked McCain about how many houses he owns -- that's a crucially important thing for voters to know. Similarly, I'm expecting the Post to blast Obama for his slimy, misleading and silly ad about McCain's lack of computer skills. Note that I haven't even referenced the incredible number of ridiculous stories about Gov. Palin.

At the end of the day, I don't know if any of these issues matter or not. But it would be presumptuous of me to decide that they don't -- the consumers are (believe it or not) smart enough to make that decision. If someone claims something that is blatantly false to be true, their credibility will take a hit, just like the media takes a hit when they report falsehoods.

This eventually ties back in to why the Democrats struggle in Presidential campaigns. For all the ridiculous claims about the Palin VP vet, it's amazing how the media essentially ignored Kerry's Winter Soldier testimony in 2004, or how they tried to ignore Edwards relationship with Rielle Hunter, or how they have essentially put on blinders on the Obama-Ayers relationship. Unlike in the past, these stories now get out, whether the New York Times reports them or not. Ultimately, the consumers/voters determine whether they're important.

And that's how it should be.