Rupert Murdoch says big media has only itself to blame for the situation it is in.

With newspapers cutting back and predictions of even worse times ahead, Rupert Murdoch said the profession may still have a bright future if it can shake free of reporters and editors who he said have forfeited the trust and loyalty of their readers.

“My summary of the way some of the established media has responded to the internet is this: it’s not newspapers that might become obsolete. It’s some of the editors, reporters, and proprietors who are forgetting a newspaper’s most precious asset: the bond with its readers,” said Murdoch. . .

Read the rest ->
——————-

Murdoch, whose company’s holdings also include MySpace and the Wall Street Journal, criticized what he described as a culture of “complacency and condescension” in some newsrooms.

“The complacency stems from having enjoyed a monopoly–and now finding they have to compete for an audience they once took for granted. The condescension that many show their readers is an even bigger problem. It takes no special genius to point out that if you are contemptuous of your customers, you are going to have a hard time getting them to buy your product. Newspapers are no exception.”
——————–

“A recent American study reported that many editors and reporters simply do not trust their readers to make good decisions. Let’s be clear about what this means. This is a polite way of saying that these editors and reporters think their readers are too stupid to think for themselves.”

Of course we’re too stupid. Think not? Well, watch any media person defend “journalism” and you’ll see some version of “we’re really good, but the people, they just don’t understand: our job, how we do our job, what’s really going on, how smart we have to be”, etc. etc. etc. Whenever you have to defend your intelligence because it’s not readily apparent, you’re in trouble.

Then, WaPo notes that many news outlets are offering BO commemorative news products. Is this a problem or just a way to make money?

Perhaps it was the announcement that NBC News is coming out with a DVD titled “Yes We Can: The Barack Obama Story.” Or that ABC and USA Today are rushing out a book on the election. Or that HBO has snapped up a documentary on Obama’s campaign.

Perhaps it was the Newsweek commemorative issue — “Obama’s American Dream” — filled with so many iconic images and such stirring prose that it could have been campaign literature. Or the Time cover depicting Obama as FDR, complete with jaunty cigarette holder.
Are the media capable of merchandizing the moment, packaging a president-elect for profit?

Yes, they are.

Seems to me WaPo doesn’t like this too much but just sees it as a tacky way to make a buck. I think it’s a bigger sell-out than that. After all, how do you offer a commemorative package if it has lots of real criticism and real vetting? Commemorative products don’t do that.

Kurtz goes on to list some of the more nauseating media Obama-worship, but unfortunately doesn’t offer much criticism.

Jennifer Rubin, though, has a comment.

The MSM championed Barack Obama throughout the primaries, clubbed his opponent, lauded him during the general election, and is now marveling at his transition. There’s no reason to stop now. If the mainstream media cared about unbiased reporting and exacting investigation, they would have made some effort earlier to balance the coverage. And now that the election of Obama has fulfilled their dreams and aspirations, why should they return to the humdrum tasks of quibbling with the press secretary, investing inter-agency squabbles, and questioning the lack of progress or the outright repudiation of campaign pledges? That might scuff up the President’s image. And it might put them on the outs with their hero.

Really, I think it’s too much to expect that the lapdog media will turn into attack-dogs or watchdogs anytime soon. After all, they have a President to help succeed.

Of course, Rubin is referring to Tweety’s assertion that it is his JOB to help out the Obama administration. Either Tweety is completely revising the definition of journalist or trying to get a running start on a potential Senate/lapdog seat, as has been rumored. If you haven’t already seen this example of high objective journalism in action, I suggest you watch.

Mediamatters has a piece on how the media is covering the rumors of HRC as SOS. Apparently, MSNBC is still bashing HRC whenever it can.

Discussing the possibility of Sen. Hillary Clinton becoming the secretary of state in President-elect Barack Obama’s administration on the November 14 edition of MSNBC’s Hardball, MSNBC political analyst Michelle Bernard asserted: “If she’s secretary of state, she will run a parallel government. It will be a huge problem.” Additionally, Jennifer Donahue, political director of the New Hampshire Institute of Politics, asked: “Will she [Clinton] be laying out the groundwork should Obama have only one term? Will she be, in fact, trying to create only one term for Barack Obama?”

During the program, Bernard also said Clinton “could give him [Obama] some cover, and she could also walk — go around the world acting as if she is not the secretary of state but the United States — the president of the United States. That’s a huge danger for him. It’s a very, very high-level job.” Host Chris Matthews then asked Donahue, “[W]ould you trust her to be a loyal subordinate, or believe she would be a bit too aggressive as a colleague?”

Here’s some wisdom from Tweety and guest “journalists.”

Matthews sounds as if he is defending HRC, but that’s a deliberate ploy to keep the conversation going in the direction he wants. He later accuses HRC of looking at Biden as a roadblock as she tries to accumulate power. The theme of this “story?” How HRC is a power hungry steamroller trying to flatten everyone as she grasps for whatever she can find. Ugh. Journalism? No. Speculation and bad thinking. Standard fare with Tweety.

Mediamatters also has a VERY interesting page noting all the negative HRC statements and media stories saying that she is “out to get” or somehow destroy the Obama wagon. This is worth looking at. MM groups media “stories” into 3 categories, below which are specific examples from tv and print “journalists.”

Examples of media figures suggesting that Clinton would pursue her own agenda as secretary of state and not Obama’s

Examples of media figures referring to Clinton as Obama’s “enem[y]

Examples of media figures suggesting that Clinton might cause trouble for Obama if he does not include her in the administration

Here’s a video compilation of some “news” professionals.

The media obsession with the Clintons continues unabated and they make HRC or BC the story whenever possible.

What’s the takeaway here? Well, Murdoch, I feel, accurately diagnosed the major problem with the MSM. It’s lost the trust of viewers/readers. While journalists try to figure out why this has happened and continue to claim THEY are doing THEIR jobs well, others continue to point, fruitlessly, to video and print where journalists spout “received wisdom” rather than challenge assumptions.

For example, it’s long been the narrative that HRC is a grasping, power-mad, mutant woman who is intrinsically unfit for any trust. “Journalists” start out by faintly praising her experience and quickly move to their BUTS. But she’s a harpy, BUT she’s trying to take over, BUT she’s not a real woman, BUT, BUT, BUT. Then after playing the BUT card in some way, they move on to BC as a reason to distrust Hillary.

WTH? The very fact that the same narrative with respect to HRC plays again and again and again and again makes it sound very much like the “research” for the “story” consists of reading MooDoo or reviewing Chris Matthews’ video. Do ANY of these people challenge their own assumptions? Apparently not.

Given that, am I really surprised that NBC will be peddling a “Yes We Can” DVD? No. The “fourth estate” died from dehydration a while ago. If all they offer is slobbering praise on the one hand, out of control vitriol on the other and still manifest arrogance and condescension, I’m surprised they’ve lasted this long. Because of all their assertions that America will somehow be lessened if big media isn’t accorded respect by those they cover and those who “consume” their “product,” I hope they die out sooner rather than later. It certainly won’t be the end of news or of investigative research and reporting.

Despite being in the business of exposing other people, the media is myopic about itself. The continuing pushback by media personnel to those criticizing their performance certainly suggests they don’t get it at all. Somewhere during the “professionalizing” of journalism, journalists came to believe that they were not only specialists in news gathering but in news understanding. That part was always supposed to be left to the reader/viewer. Not anymore.

Any chance this economic downturn will result in fewer “professional news” outlets?

Media Matters reports a segment Dick Morris did the other day comparing Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton.

Now, that would have been an interesting comparison, except that he used a false premise for his jumping off point. Oh, the false premise involved Hillary, not Sarah. Big surprise these days, I know, when everyone is concocting falsehood regarding Gov. Palin. No, this was kicking it old school, going back to rag on Hillary by twisting what happened in NH way back in January as a way to demean Hillary and promote Sarah.

Now, I am not one to attack Gov. Palin for no cause or based on flat out lies, rumor, or innuendo. But don’t use that same ploy with my Hillary, dammit!! (Along the lines of a comparison, Larry Johnson had a good one today, “Sarah Palin, Hillary Like, Not Hillary Lite.”

Just in case you don’t know who Dick Morris is, he used to work in the Clinton administration until 1996. It was at that time that his long-standing relationship with “call girl,” Sherry Rowlands, came out right before President Clinton gave his acceptance speech for the Democratic nomination. And I mean HOURS before. Oh, and he’s married, just in case you’re keeping score. He seems to have a bit of a personal vendetta against the Clintons - it just makes sense that he would blame THEM for his sordid affair, but hey - I guess that’s just Washington politics. Now that we are on the same page, this is what happened with Ol’ Dick on Fox News Monday, September 15, 2008:

Except that’s not what happened in NH, Morris, you windbag:

At no time, in any way, did she EVER complain about sexism during this moving, patriotic moment. (And honest to pete - tell the truth - did YOU get teary eyed watching and listening to her just now? I know I did. Oh, my - what an awesome opportunity the DNC and Superdelegates squandered…)

She COULD have, mind you. As many of us have said, and has been demonstrated up one side and down the other, there was not just sexism, but downright misogyny addressed to Senator Clinton, and all women. But that was not why she got emotional. She got emotional because she loves this country. She is a devoted, committed public servant, who fought HARD for us - for all 18,000,000 of us, Dick. Now this is, in no way, any kind of indictment against Gov. Palin. She just happened to be the tool by which the tool, Dick Morris, swatted at Sen. Clinton.

No, Senator Clinton barely said a word about the sexism in this campaign, and how she was targeted by the media. We wanted her to, but knew if she did, they would label it whining, complaining, dare I say, BITCHING about it. So, she let it roll off her shoulders, dealing with brutal assaults on her not just because she was a Clinton, but because she was a woman. And she had to let a lot roll. If, by some chance, you need a reminder, here’s a short one:

Uh, yeah. What the hell does SHE have to complain about, I ask you?!?! Ahem.

And then there is Barack Obama. Obama has STILL to be vetted because no one wanted to look like a racist for questioning his record (NEWSFLASH: to treat someone disparately because of the color of their skin, for good or ill, is racist). The articles are just POURING out claiming if Obama loses, it will be racism, pure and simple (Lisa B. just had an excellent article on this topic at No Quarter). That is preposterous -if he loses, it will be because of his incredible lack of experience, his shady associates, and his thin resume. To vote for him simply because of his skin color is racist, no doubt about it. He should be held to all the same standards as anyone else in his position. But no. I think we all know more about Governor Palin at this point than we do about Obama because SHE has been open about her life. Obama? Not so much. Still waiting on those records, Barack, still waiting…

Anywho - so Dick Morris continues to bash Clinton, but he also misses the point by so doing: Governor Palin may not have complained about sexist treatment by the media, but that does NOT mean she, like Hillary, has not been the recipient of it. In just a few weeks, the media, and so-called liberals, have already engaged in a great deal of sexism against her. Since I began with Media Matters, I will close with this video from them of talking heads at CNN after McCain announced Palin. So, Dick, the bottom line is that neither one of these women complained about sexism, though Clinton had to deal with about 23 more months of it than Palin has thus far. But make no mistake - she’s dealing with it, too. Which means all women are dealing with it (gee, can a woman have a family AND a job in the 21st century? It would sure seem not, judging by the reaction of Democrats and the MSM). Check it out:

And Governor Palin, just so you know - a lot of us may not agree with many of your policies, but we are damn sick and tired of people saying crap to women for being women, so we will speak up, and speak out. Oh, and Dick? Maybe you should stop speaking already.

I am affiliated with I Own My Vote.

What went wrong?

The representative process of the Democratic Presidential Preference began with the Iowa caucuses and ended with the Montana and South Dakota primaries. Much has been said about the inherent flaws in a process that is not uniform, much of which is very valid and deserves corrective measures.

It is evident that much of the electorate and, in kind, many of our elected officials, do not have a firm grasp of the nominating process: a process that begins at the convention - no sooner and no later. Calls by Democratic Party leaders to have the “nomination” determined on a specific date, has no relevance. Calls to have Super Delegates declare their endorsement before the nominating process begins short-circuits the democratic process.

More importantly, however, we have seen and we know, that our Democracy is in dire need of change. A significant portion of the electorate realizes that our Democracy is at a crossroads: the path we choose today will determine our future with a sense of urgency most generations rarely experience. There is no small reason so many are polarized and refuse to support the “presumptive” Democratic Presidential nominee. The process has been far from normal - if fact, many say it has been undemocratic: Barack Obama was selected, not elected.

We could, and rightfully so, point to a number of factors that lead many to this conclusion:

• Suppression of millions of votes (Florida & Michigan)
• Fraudulent practices in states where caucuses were held
• Media bias
• Discriminatory practices that were allowed to reign free without repudiation

However, there is a much more insidious and covert force working here: George Soros.

The George Soros Factor

George Soros began pouring millions into election finance reform. His millions effectively contributed to the passage of the McCain-Feingold law. While placing a cap on soft-money, it allowed 527’s to secure unlimited donations thereby using these organizations to promote their agenda and support candidates that subscribed to them or message against those that did not.

Soros began a concerted effort to yield influence by acquiring and significantly funding 527s like MoveOn, ACT, Media Matters, and the Center for American Progress. He was a primary backer of the failed Howard Dean Presidential candidacy in 2004. With Howard Dean’s ascension to Democratic Party leader, George Soros was able to yield, through his wealth and in conjunction with the Democratic Alliance, a little known “billionaire’s club”, significant power and influence to alter the make-up of the Democratic Party.

Soros and Nazi Germany

Not known to many, George Soros was the “adopted grandson” of an official in the Nazi government. A 1998 interview with Steve Kroft on “60-Minutes”, Soros explains his upbringing in Nazi Germany and furthermore indicates no sense of “guilt” or remorse for what he not only observed but for that in which he participated.

At the age of 14 he was exposed to the mass shipment of Jews to concentration camps and participated in the looting of personal property. His “formative” years were shaped by the policies of a fascist government; a government whose leader was propelled to the forefront of the national psyche by a phenomenon known as the “Cult of Personality”.

Obama: The Cult of Personality

The Obama campaign is reminiscent of elements of Nazi Germany. For instance, the quid pro quo exchange of volunteerism for “organizational training” offered by the Obama campaign is nothing more than a covert form of assimilation. His campaign’s manipulation of the democratic process, suppression of votes, the infringement on our democratic principles (including free speech), manipulation of the press, and countless other tactics have colluded to expunge the legitimate nominee for the Democratic Presidential candidacy in favor of an illegitimate one.

The briefly paraded but profoundly disturbing “Obama Seal” is yet another indication of the “person” becoming more important than the Party and the United States of America. The arrogance and bold exhibit of ego in using a symbol of our Country for personal gain is indicative of the phenomenon of the “Cult of Personality”. Furthermore, the blind following of his supporters, to discount these assaults on our Democracy, is yet another indicator of this cancerous blight.

Implications for our Democracy

Our Democracy is at stake: period. Many discount the massive outcry to the potential obliteration of our Democratic principles as a fad of “disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters”. But we are the enlightened.: make no doubt about it.

We have seen the injustices to our Democratic process. To gain this insight, however, it takes a true leader to reveal them. Hillary Clinton has done that. We are enamored not only by her and the issues she represents but because she has gone through this process, to show us the truth.

We are acting. What each of does in the voting booth November 4th, 2008, is, we believe, sacred, personal, and the core of our Democracy. However, we must combat this “Cult of Personality”. We must protect the principles that our forefathers died for to form this new form of government: government for the people by the people. A Democracy with is uniquely American.

We cannot allow George Soros, Howard Dean, Barack Obama, and associated cohorts the deny the will of 18 million voters. George Soros, more than any other American, is the greatest threat to our Democracy. While we point the finger to Barack Obama, Howard Dean, David Axelrod, et. al, we need to hold accountable George Soros and his cronies that have manipulated our Democracy to their benefit.

Make no doubt about it: money talks. George Soros has a sacrificial lamb in Barack Obama. It may be a blessing in disguise he does not know it.

______________

Add your name today at the “I Own My Vote” site.