Exactly why I refuse to subscribe to any newspapers or watch most TV news or, increasingly, am barely able to tolerate NPR. But, of course, it would be too much to expect the MSM to draw the correct conclusion from my, and it seems many others', boycott of their tripe. As long as the internet is able to function as it does, MSM is doomed to increasing irrelevance.

The long shadow of James Stewart and Whitewater, of Jeff Gerth and Wen Ho Lee, of Judy "Queen of All Iraq" Miller, of a dozen other reputations made on the back of ginned-up scandals, will be there for a generation, or until sea-level changes drown the last house on the Vineyard owned by the last celebrity journamalist.

What I find equally frustrating is that Obama-supporting pundits overstate the defense (eg. Oh, of course nothing happened). Instead they should just tell what they do know about Obama's character and actions, or challenge the legitimacy of the questions (On what basis are you even suggesting that, Wolf? Sure you are. You brought it up. I didn't.)

Maybe Republicans still haven't learned their lesson from the 90s, but that's no reason the press has to follow them over a cliff once again.

And what lesson did they learn? If you scam the media, you get to impeach a popular president who brought eight years of peace and prosperity and install a Republican moron in his place? I thin Republicans have learned the lesson all too well.

All of this is just unacceptably irresponsible journalism. It's borderline slander to even mention Obama if there is no reason to, because studies show that people will start to associate Obama and Blago even if the articles say that there is no connection.

At the time the Blagojevich news broke, the Senate Armed Services Committee released a bi-partisan report tying Donald Rumsfeld and some of his deputies to the atrocities at Abu Ghraib. Rather than following up on the actual connections between the Bush administration and the stomach-turning abuse there the media chose to try and spin a non-story into real news. Some might say that the media was deliberately trying to deflect attention from Bushco, I wouldn't because they're too stupid and lazy for that. I would say that they're doing everything they can to bury the memory of how their laziness and gullibility made them complicit in Bush's reign of error.

If that happens -- if the media continue to behave as they did in covering Whitewater -- they will damage the country. It's really that simple.

Maybe it's a good thing that newspapers are going belly-up.

I'm being facetious, but still: it's hard to have much sympathy for these clowns. Especially when they've been routinely lecturing bloggers for years about our lack of journalistic standards.

I think this is the result of the 24/7 news cycle and the competition that it engenders. It's made even worse by the entertainment-news programs on cable in the evenings. It's all about ratings. Combine that with the generally far-right dominance of talk radio, and there's quite a witch's brew. Toss in the MSM websites and the blogosphere, and we have information overload. A paucity of authentic investigative reports, and a majority of talking heads who like to call themselves "journalists," who have neither the educational background or actual experience to do so.

At the time the Blagojevich news broke, the Senate Armed Services Committee released a bi-partisan report tying Donald Rumsfeld and some of his deputies to the atrocities at Abu Ghraib.

I'm glad you were paying attention! We were starting to think we were the only people who cared!

Blue Girl, nice work! Having spent a substantial portion of my life in the military (Born, raised, served) I was disbelieving of the "a few bad apples" explanation for Abu Ghraib when Bushco put it out and the media swallowed it whole.

We must bear in mind that most of the MSM don't have attention spans exceeding one or two weeks. So asking them to bear in mind what transpired in the early 90's .... ?????

But this week brought signs that much of the media is set to resume the absurd and shameful behavior that defined the 1990s -- guilt by association, circular analysis whereby they ask baseless questions about non-scandals, then claim they have to report on the "scandal" because the White House is "besieged by questions," grotesque leaps of logic, downplaying exculpatory information, and too many other failings to list.
=========================

Actually November 4th brought those signs. McCain lost -- what else would you expect to follow?

Well, I think the media folks are hoping they get their cake and eat it too - allowed to focus on the trivial but Obama still succeeds and the economy recovers. This was the case in the election where press fellated the usual manufactured contraversies without impeding his solid victory. I don't expect the media to reform itself anytime soon but I don't think their failures necessary doom Obama either.

Two advantages Obama likely has over Clinton are that he will probably have a Dem majority longer than two years (one that likes and trusts him more than was true of Clinton in '93 - '95) meaning no endless, crippling investigations to daily feed the media beasts and, second, Obama hopefully won't provide ammo through bad behavior. Bill Clinton was hunted unfairly and mercilessly from day one and yet he was dumb enough to sneak blow jobs from a groupie 3 years into the Inquisition. I have much more faith in Obama's judgment and discipline. Hell, I think he'll break his no smoking in the White House pledge but will never get caught cause he thinks everything through.

Also, this from Democratic Strategist

//
The major problem is not that the reporters are deliberately promoting Republican talking points. Rather it is that skilled (and, in fact, even utterly mediocre) PR operatives can almost effortlessly manipulate the coverage of a “scandal� by understanding the medias’ three-step process.

1. During the first 24-72 hours of a breaking story reporters and analysts are in a desperate life or death competition to inflate the importance of a “scandal� and make it as big as story as possible. (After all, nobody gets a Pulitzer or a raise for a story titled “XYZ scandal of limited importance�). Conversely, there is no penalty or downside cost to reporters and analysts for engaging in baseless speculation (In fact, if salaries were actually reduced based on the number of a reporter or analysts’ idle speculations that turned out to be groundless, the practice would quickly disappear).

2. Once the “story� is established as “news�, dramatic statements by leading Republicans or simply growing media or internet discussion of the “story� become themselves officially more “News� – justifying another set of headlines and TV teasers saying “back in a moment with new information on this breaking story.�

3. After the “big news� phase has passed, there is no tradition in American journalism or other effective pressure on journalists that will lead them to produce follow-up stories that correct the false impressions generated during the initial frenzy. Think about it. When was the last time you saw a follow-up news story – in the same front page position and the same headline size as the original stories that says, for example, “Obama emerges unscathed from Blagojevich affair – no evidence of personal involvement found�. The media simply do not consider themselves obligated or responsible for producing news stories like this in the aftermath of a media feeding frenzy. Correcting a false impression is not a “big news� story like the original misleading version.

The result of these three factors is a systematic, inherent bias that even the most clumsy partisan PR operatives can manipulate to their advantage.

Reporters are all well aware of this and many will privately admit the bias it introduces. They will also admit that Democrats suffer more than Republicans from this problem because they are less likely to counter-attack the media with accusations of ideological bias or to attack critical coverage as “unpatriotic� or “un-American�.
//

Dems need to do a better job of interrupting this insidious process.

The way that the mainstream media falls all over itself trying to create a scandal when none exists when a Democrat is involved, while ignoring major crimes and Constitutional violations when the Bush Administration is involved, is simply breathtaking.

Reuters is reporting that Blago is stepping down on Monday---so there goes the media's newest non-story. and---the way for SASC to pull an end-run on the American MSM is to take their case to the foreign press, and then sit back as the entire international community makes a joke out of the US media circus.

If any baseless and/or irrelevant manufactured 'issue' becomes too much of a nuisance, Obama will give a speech and it will be history. If too many such 'issues' emerge, he will give a speech on MSM responsibility.

Willie was hounded excessively, but his well-known flaws hurt his credibility too much for him to ever successfully confront the jackals. In this regard, these are not the good old days(90s), they are better.

The difference between the 1990s and now is that now we have their e-mail addresses at the bottom of their "stories." If anyone thinks Joe Klein just happened to change his mind about McCain and Obama this past summer, think again. He got whacked, and whacked hard, and not just at the Swampland blog. When he wrote bullshit, his e-mail in-box exploded. He even complained about it. But he finally got "risk averse" to spouting off with bullshit, and learned his lesson. Do the same thing to these other-wise unemployables.

BTW - a good one to start with is Peter Nicholas at the L.A. Times. This is the moron who got it wrong about Obama not wanting to sign the kid's ball back during the campaign, because his widdle feewings were hurted when Obama didn't personally answer his question during a gaggle a couple months earlier. He's been getting a good whacking - and even got it publicly in the Letters to the Editor last month - and it has affected the quality of his work for the better.

Remember, they're just schmucks with laptops. The term "Otherwise-unemployable" was created with the "press" in mind.

Ok, this guy needs to spend a few years with an r next to his name and must attend all functions at bohogrove for life.
He wanted to make some money with whatever he had to work with, whatever came his way he wanted to profit from one way or the other.OK, we got it.
What about selling a war where thousands die and trillions are wasted?
Does this behavior need at least this same amount of airplay?
Roveroolala needs serious theraphy.No joke
You know the list goes on....and on.

There's a problem for the right wing journalistic operators smearing Obama. They've been trying to go on full attack mode against the state of Illinois just like they did against Arkansas in the 90s. Sure, they can get away with a few insults about the corruption there, but Illinois is not going to fit the Arkansas method of smearing. It's too large and rich and familiar to most Americans.

Too bad Jesse Jackson Junior and other idiot Democratic politicians are buying into the corrupt Illinois argument. They should shut up and stop going on the defensive. Their response should be to call the guilt by association an evil and absurd ploy of the Republicans.

Reuters is reporting that Blago is stepping down on Monday---so there goes the media's newest non-story.
Guess they'll have to wait for an attractive young woman to disappear under mysterious circumstances. Heaven forfend that they take a stab at the Armed Services Committee report linking Rumsfeld, et al, to the abuses at Abu Ghraib.

Testing to see if the commenter name/hyperlink problem has been fixed.

That's why the administration needs to be aggressively investigating Bush's felonies and war crimes, extracting new admissions every frickin day and waggling them around like Monica's moist cigars.

I seem to recall at the Whitewater trial against Jim Guy Tucker people saying the charges had nothing to do with Bill Clinton, and the moment Tucker was convicted it was all about Bill Clinton. This is about Obama. Who else can the Illinois governor flip on? Same 90's playbook, different prosecutor.

Totally disagree with the post. This is NOT an “MSM feeding frenzy.” All Obama had to do was say something like THIS last week, and he wouldn’t have the media yapping at his heels.

Instead, he tried to give half answers and non-answer “answers.”

I have no doubt Obama did nothing illegal, and neither did Emanuel.

But, when Obama acts like he’s enacting a cover-up, he IS guilty of gross stupidity, perhaps with a side dish of arrogance or something, I don’t know.

That said, as an independent left-liberal, I don’t participate in the “Republicans up, Democrats down, “ or “Democrats up, Republicans down” political games and spinning.

That’s why I can offer an independent angle free from BOTH the conservative blogosphere and MSLBs like this, Josh, etc. as well.

Bottom line, though? As I linked above, all Obama had to do was give us a straight and full answer in the first place.

Not doing so appears to be part of a pattern.

Yep, we can expect to see a move by the GOP in the House on Jan 21st to impeach Obama for not getting a "Blago job".

WTF?

Do they think a (non-GOP) guy who has just won the Presidency is going to be on the take? While he is in the middle of picking his Cabinet?

It says a lot about the GOP that they actually think such a thing is possible. . . in their circles, evidently something like this is.

.

Davis X. Machina mentions Whitewater, which is a good point to elaborate on.

How many here remember what the final dispensation of that fishing expedition tar-and-feathering was?

A few days after Bush took office in 2001, I heard on the radio that the Clintons had been found to have no guilt associated with them.

I never heard even ONE follow-up to that news.

Had there never been Whitewater, there never would have been an impeachment, obviously.

So, what we have here is the rightwingbuttheads taking a shot in the dark, attempting to push that button again (through the MSM) - to get Congress to eventually appoint a Special Prosecutor who will expand his investigation again and again, until he can find out that Obama spit on the sidewalk and can get him to lie about it.

To them, at least, it all makes sense...

It's their only chance - to smear Obama. They can't beat him on the issues.

WTF else do they have?

.