Several newspapers have written up a recent talk made by the reporters who broke the Watergate story - Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward - that included a discussion about whether reporters in the age of the internet would have been able to break the Watergate scandal as they did years back.
They note that students today seem to over-estimate what is on the internet:
The truth of what goes on is not on the Internet. [The Internet] can
supplement. It can help advance. But the truth resides with people.
Human sources.”
And that the resources they had available that allowed for the investigation do not exist any more:
Woodward and Bernstein’s main point was evocative of a previous,
plentiful era: Editors gave them the time and encouragement to pursue an
intricate, elusive story, they said, and then the rest of the American
system (Congress, the judiciary) took over and worked. It was a shining
act of democratic teamwork that neither man believes is wholly
replicable today — either because news outlets are strapped or gutted,
or because the American people have a reduced appetite for ponderous
coverage of a not-yet-scandal, or because the current Congress would
never act as decisively to investigate a president.
And they mention the negative impact of the 24 hour news cycle and the use of news sources to confirm deeply held opinions rather than obtain objective analysis:
“We had a readership that was much more open to real fact than today,”
Bernstein said. “Today there’s a huge audience, partly whipped into
shape by the 24-hour cycle, that is looking for information to confirm
their already-held political-cultural-religious beliefs/ideologies, and
that is the cauldron into which all information is put. . . . I
have no doubt there are dozens of great reporters out there today — and
news organizations — that could do this story. What I don’t think is
that it would withstand this cultural reception. It might get ground up
in the process.”
Of course they might just be a couple of grumpy old guys.
Showing posts with label 24 hour news cycle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 24 hour news cycle. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Too Much Information?
Does our easy access to current events and newly published books and ideas distract us from the really important stuff?
Maybe.
I wrestle with this as prepare subject matter for class. How much attention do I give to the everyday give and take of government and politics and how much to I devote to the timeless issues related to how a group of people decide how to govern themselves?
Maybe.
I wrestle with this as prepare subject matter for class. How much attention do I give to the everyday give and take of government and politics and how much to I devote to the timeless issues related to how a group of people decide how to govern themselves?
Thursday, June 25, 2009
The Presidency and The 24 Hour News Cycle
Given the attention given the office, presidents dominate the news cycle whether they want to or not. John Dickerson comments on how Obama handles this task:
At one point in the back-and-forth with reporters over Iran, the president said, "I know everybody here is on a 24-hour news cycle. I'm not. OK?" It was a good line. He has used a version of it in a previous press conference. But while the president doesn't like the demands of the news cycle, he knows just how to feed it. When outrage over AIG bonuses gripped the news cycle, he appeared before cameras to channel it. When Sonia Sotomayor's remarks about being a "wise Latina" caused controversy, Obama and his team knew it was better to say she misspoke than to keep arguing that she'd been taken out of context. During his campaign, Obama scrapped his opposition to wearing a flag pin for the same reasons. By modifying his position or habits a little, Obama feeds the news beast and the overheated controversy goes away.
In some ways the president is the 24-hour news cycle. He's everywhere—cable, sports channels, and late-night talk shows. He'll be on ABC tomorrow talking about health care. At the press conference he showed just how attuned he is to the rapacious news environment. He called on the Huffington Post's Nico Pitney, who has been following the Iran story closely, and asked him to relay one of the questions he'd gotten from one of the Iranian protesters.* The White House had called Pitney that morning to invite him over to ask the question, an act of stagecraft for which the previous president would have been excoriated by his critics.
....
For better or worse, this ability to adapt tends to determine the success or failure of presidencies. But while it allows presidents to adjust to the shifting political environment, it can raise questions regardign how firmly a president stands on certain issues. Are there areas where he will not budge. We'll see whether Obama falls into this trap.
At one point in the back-and-forth with reporters over Iran, the president said, "I know everybody here is on a 24-hour news cycle. I'm not. OK?" It was a good line. He has used a version of it in a previous press conference. But while the president doesn't like the demands of the news cycle, he knows just how to feed it. When outrage over AIG bonuses gripped the news cycle, he appeared before cameras to channel it. When Sonia Sotomayor's remarks about being a "wise Latina" caused controversy, Obama and his team knew it was better to say she misspoke than to keep arguing that she'd been taken out of context. During his campaign, Obama scrapped his opposition to wearing a flag pin for the same reasons. By modifying his position or habits a little, Obama feeds the news beast and the overheated controversy goes away.
In some ways the president is the 24-hour news cycle. He's everywhere—cable, sports channels, and late-night talk shows. He'll be on ABC tomorrow talking about health care. At the press conference he showed just how attuned he is to the rapacious news environment. He called on the Huffington Post's Nico Pitney, who has been following the Iran story closely, and asked him to relay one of the questions he'd gotten from one of the Iranian protesters.* The White House had called Pitney that morning to invite him over to ask the question, an act of stagecraft for which the previous president would have been excoriated by his critics.
....
For better or worse, this ability to adapt tends to determine the success or failure of presidencies. But while it allows presidents to adjust to the shifting political environment, it can raise questions regardign how firmly a president stands on certain issues. Are there areas where he will not budge. We'll see whether Obama falls into this trap.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)