Reason #1,684,351 why I do not watch television news

July 17, 2007

Wow.

During the July 17 edition of ABC’s Good Morning America, co-anchor Diane Sawyer falsely claimed that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) “vows to filibuster, talking all night to close out all topics besides a vote on Iraqi troop withdrawals.” […]

Additionally, on the July 16 edition of Fox News’ Special Report with Brit Hume, Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes asserted that Reid is “filibustering his own bill.”

(bangs head on desk)

Josh Marshall has been documenting just how irresponsible the media has been in neglecting to report on GOP filibusters, leading to widespread confusion as to why Congress isn’t passing legislation. Now, once the media finally brings itself to start introducing the word to the public, major news outlets get it backwards.

I can almost understand Barnes screwing this up; he has to earn dog biscuits from Karl Rove somehow. But Diane Sawyer has been a professional political correspondent in DC since 1978. Before that, she worked in two Republican White Houses. She must know what a filibuster is, and she must realize that the Senate Democratic leadership hopes to defeat a filibuster, not engage in one.

I get frustrated at times with the public’s lack of political knowledge, but here’s an instance in which people watching the news on TV will know less than they would have known staring at a blank screen.

Part of the point behind tonight’s efforts in the Senate is to bring greater awareness to Republicans’ tactics and GOP obstructionism, particularly on Iraq policy. It looks like there are some reporters who stand to learn a few things.

Well, it is hard to remember to get the facts right when you’re making sure the camera has the right filters so you don’t look your age, and we all know that appearances as more important than the facts, right?

The “news” has become an exercise in seeing if there is anything they get right, how much of the context is left out, and how one-sided the story can be. When they made the decision to fold the news division into the entertainment division, this is clearly where they were headed – and I think they are finally there.

  • Looks like the Fourth Estate is now a willing participant in the Fourth Reich.

    Reid should demonstrate a lil’ leadership and sue for slander.

  • That’s why I was calling it a possible fiasco. The news doesn’t even mention the word “filibuster” except with a quote from Reid that says something like, “we’ll have a good old-fashioned filibuster” which could be interpreted that the CongDems are doing the filibustering. The true message didn’t get out. Plus it all turned out to be a measly thirty hour debate which solved nothing, especially if the news gets it all wrong.

  • ….people watching the news on TV will know less than they would have known staring at a blank screen.

    If I owned a network, would I consider this a bug, or a feature.

  • I dunno, if it were not for today’s “journalists” and the media, I might still have the mistaken notion that the majority party was the Democrats.

  • Diane Sawyer is trying very hard to act like Katie Cure-all in the hope she too will become an anchor. Otherwise why would she be on the morning shows?

  • 1) If Reid used the construction “we’ll have a good old-fashioned filibuster,” then he fails the messaging test biggerbox and I and others have been repeatedly pounding on. That phrase begs to be misinterpreted, and its ambiguity does not help the general public get a clear message.

    2) Party officials and key media staffers for Reid and other Dem Senators need to prompty seek a meeting with Sawyer, her writer, her director and the ABC news chief and explain why this was inaccurate, why the inaccuracy was important, how her error resorted in a partisan slant to the story, and seek an on-air clarification. If they are not given the meeting, or given a meeting but no recourse, they need to publicize that fact (see my post earlier today about ways to get the message out.) The press needs to be educated/reminded. And if they will not learn out of interest in doing a good job, they need to learn instead that each partisan screw up will result in a meeting, and public push-back. Threaten to withhold news and interview sources if necessary. That (ok, along with buying all of the media outlets) was how the Right got the media to sell its line.

    The Dem messaging just has to improve.

  • A good old fashioned sitin at ABC NEWS by a select group of eloquent, well-dressed photogenic non-violent moderates being taped by independent sources, repeated everyday for a week, might get a response.

  • Diane Sawyer has been and still is a lifelong Republican. “I seen my duty and I done it” applies here. Why is anyone surprised that this person who never was a “responsible journalist” and has always been a “talking head” would do this.

    Given my wife used to be her teleprompter operator out here on the West Coast, I can prove absolutely that Diane is a Republican and always looks at things through Republican-tinted glasses.

    So, no surprise here, other than that people are surprised she is what she has always been.

  • I just talked about this with She Who Must Be Obeyed, and she recalls numerous instances of Diane rewriting copy (the teleprompter operator works closely with the on-screen talent to make sure what’s on the screen is exactly as it should be for the talent – so they are hyper-aware of these things) and as a politically-aware person ,she was frequently surprised at the twist Diane would put on things – she too had thought at the beginning that Diane was a “real” journalist. She laughed when I showed her the post, to see people being actually surprised by this.

  • Only inside the belt way political geeks worry about such issues. When the citizens pull or push the voting buttons i just don’t think it matters what political party is holding up business today. You can be sure they will pass a budget with all the money needed to fund the war and the ag supports, corporate tax breaks etc, this little drama’s for the political base of either Republican or Democrat is just another media driven event that each side can say, Yeah we really care bah bah bah.

  • “…It looks like there are some reporters who stand to learn a few things.” Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahha!

    How could they not know who is filibustering? They mislead at every opportunity even with over the shoulder comments. And seldom are they called on it.

    I never bother to watch TV news at all. Thank god for the internet.
    Who do they think they’re fooling? Do you know anyone paying attention who does not know Senate republicans are obstructing any meaningful legislation by threatening to filibuster?
    These so called “reporters” assume the public is stupid and ill informed and when they are wrong it makes them look like propaganda mouth pieces so they continue to lose credibility.

    Should be a sign above the monitor that reads “mis inform at your own risk”. When they do it I cannot look at them again without remembering. When they do it often enough I cannot even look at them again. I no longer watch TV news.

  • That good old “liberal media” strikes again.

    WTF do these people think? Do they not care if they look like idiots?

  • The lovely Diane Sawyer has a long history of presenting the news from a right wing perspective. I didn’t know she worked for two Republican administrations, but it comes as no surprise.

  • How do you continue to cling to the hope this is sloppiness, or limited to “TV”?

    Yesterday, I was laughing at how the GOP’s lapdog press aimed at liberals, but shot their buddies in the face. By protecting their comrades, they had forced Reid to bring Republican obstructionism out into the open. I had no idea the press was this in the bag.

    You continue to think with your reality-based bias, where words have definitions. But definitions are malleable, free-floating things that can be attached to whatever word polls best for the GOP.

    Thus, doing things that help others is not “charity” or “altruism”, but “hypocrisy” if John Edwards does it. Filibuster become filibustered. Republican coined terms for the “nuclear option” and “private accounts” suddenly become Democratic inventions when they don’t play well in Peoria, and examples of the Press’s liberal bias. So they switch from the old poll-tested term to the next, always strictly adhering to Luntz’s dictionary.

    Which is why, I’m sure, the Press feels they are being honest. They ARE reporting the story. It’s just that “up” now means “down”.

    • Comments are closed.