• #1
    The press wants a two-party system because they can't handle more than that. Imagine if the US was a multi-party coalition type of system, they'd crater. It literally terrifies them that the Republicans might go under, who would that hate on? As for what they want? My guess is try and maintain their illusion they are the fourth branch of government.
  • #10
    Well said. That's exactly what the problem is. They want to be the story instead of reporting the story. With Cable TV including Fox and MSNBC it's all about celebrity. They get million dollar contracts instead of working for a newspaper for 50K a year.
  • #13
    @jessejaymes that is exactly why I avoid watching those channels. The more extreme (whether conservative or liberal) a host is, the more $ they get.
    The only problem is, these TV personalities ( I really don't consider them reporters) are polarizing this nation with their ultraconservative or ultraliberal views. As I read posts here it becomes apparent that the days of being a moderate are gone. That is exactly what the media wants because controversy, like war, sells papers.
    Because of this, I only watch George(not going to butcher his last name) and the round table on ABC on Sunday mornings.
    Both sides of debate are represented. Matt Does, former W. staffer is my favorite because he seems to be the most bipartisan voice out there. We need to have more reporters like him.
  • #19
    @mtkopf Absolutely correct. Follow the money, always follow the money. I watch Morning Joe because it tickles me to see moderate Joe Scarborough get just incensed at the far right and far left.
  • #38

    The mainstream media is nothing more than a class warfare machine, that feeds off the hate that it creates and generates in the minds and hearts of its SHEEPLE viewers!
  • R Load more replies

  • #36
    What Do Political Reporters Want?
    Here I will answer that question
    1. George Soros Open border plan
    2. Saul Alinsky "Marxism"
    3. The USA to become a 3rd world country, "Welfare State"
    anyone who doesnt promote this agenda is a Bigot or a Racist.
  • #37
    i agree 100%,they like to be portrayed as referee's at pro-wrestling match,but in reality they are trying to promote a socialist agenda,they are disinformation specialists wright out of george orwells 1984,most have no loyalty to America as you may notice they always refer to America in third person terms,they are only to happy to grind away at our faults and quick to put positive stories on the back page,the new ministry of propaganda !!!
  • #14
    Political writers want what all voters want: a candidate who is honest and authentic while agreeing with everything that we want to hear. So, yes, it is an impossible dilemma. That is why it is not what a candidate IS that is important, it is how a candidate appears. So we have photogenic, trained actors getting elected. Fans of Ronald Reagan didn't care that Nancy was standing beside him feeding him his scripted lines for the cameras because he delivered them as if they were from the heart.
  • #7
    If the reporters were actually reporters, I'd actually care what they want. They all have either self-serving motives now and spew opinion, or employer-serving motives that keep them employed if they're not a big name.
  • #48
    Exactly. I write on occasion, and wanting to be read, to see people reacting to what one wrote is the thing most writers want most.
  • #35
    The media absolutely loves it's role as kingmaker in elections. They want candidates they can destroy from the party they personally oppose, and they will hide every last damaging detail about the candidate of their choice. Very few are the slightest bit objective.
  • #29
    Not sure how to take that...I do not want any more government anywhere and especially
    not in the News, although they probably already have their tentacles in that as well...
    Anyway, interesting, but seems really liberal, from what I read anyway. Gotta go.(:
  • #21
    I am totally convinced people on both sides will only hear what they choose to hear...Reporters want the juiciest
    news stories for ratings, that's how they make their living and the most watched News channels pay the largest
    salaries. We live in such a high tech era, that anything even uttered under ones breath can be heard around the
    world in seconds, gaffes are funny sometimes and humor is good, to a point, but the days of being able to say
    anything in "confidence" are over. I would hate to think anything I uttered could be dissected by the media and spun again and again, until the truth gets lost in translation, and yet that is what we now have and there's no way
    of turning back. So, we take the News, try to use common sense and separate the wheat from the chaff and that
    is the best we can do...Technology is a double edged sword, for sure...
  • #16
    Mr. Phillips, i have a question if you are monitering this tread...

    Is it now considered rude or innappropriate for reporters to question a candidate's, or their campaign staff's, use of these out of context gaffes? is it a political reporters job to just report what they say or question the veracity of their statements?

    i see very little of this type of questioning going on during the campaigns.
  • #25
    Author, "The Media Training Bible"
    Hello, woodtick57,

    Thank you very much for your question. I did see some reporters and news organizations challenging the use of some of the out-of-context sound bites. There are an increasing number of "fact checkers" who are calling out campaigns for distorted uses. But like so many other things, the political leanings of the fact checkers themselves are regularly being called into question now. My personal sense is that "fact checkers" are a good thing--and that the people calling them out (generally speaking) are doing so because they don't like their findings, not because they're wrong.

    Best wishes,
    Brad Phillips
  • #49
    Yes.that happens all the time, a person makes a statement about an unfavorable thing a politician has said or done and instead of resppnding to the issue the person changes the conversation to "the news media are all liberals" or "how am i supposed to belive anything glenn beck says." people don't ask if the story is true anymore, instead they attack the reporter or media source for having a perspective they don't agree with.
  • #12
    Nice article, Mr. Phillips.

    i would think on your point of the gaffes, it is the US electorate that abuses such out of context soundbytes, not so much the media. the media give the audience what they demand.
  • #2
    The same thing all journalists want: drama. The problem is some things are naturally dramatic, like natural disasters and crime. But statesmenship and politics can be dull as dirt is they are handled in a mature and thoughtful way. Doesn't sell, does it? So enter Faux News and the Limbaughs and Coulters of the world to inject drama and create controversy whether it naturally exists or not.
  • #5
    You left out MSNBC, Maddow, Matthews, and Sharpton. But I agree, they all want drama. What is the saying? "If it bleeds, it leads"?
  • #24
    Maybe we're saying the same thing, but from my prospective, it's all about ratings. Ratings pays the bills and justifies a higher salary. Reports are Rachel Maddow received a large bonus for knocking off Sean in the ratings.
    The more dramatic the more the news the theory is more will watch. It's when they create news and controversy that they get into trouble as CNN did years ago. Fox seems uniquely able to flip flop their opinion than anyone else (see John Steward the Daily Show) Now it's just every utterance by anyone id closely examine analyzed and interpreted. The viewer is assumed to incapable of forming their own opinions hence my preference for newspapers. Interviews have been more (I hate using a Palinism) "gotcha's" rather than investigational Q&A. And please keep these "reporters" inside during hurricanes and floods, they're asinine appearing standing in waist deep water in 100mph winds, I tend to wonder how they avoid electrocution rather than listen to what they have to say.
  • #27
    @martydotcom Sort of. Humans are instinctively attracted to drama on a gut level, so drama will get more viewers than non-drama. For instance, how many people watch "Meet The Press" vs the number who watch "Housewives Gone Wild In New Jersey Who Will No Doubt Break Out Into A Brawl Any Second Now"? And that is why Faux News, as infotainment, usually is higher rated than real news outlets which stick to the facts. Or Jon Stewart, for that matter, because while seldom dramatic in his presentation, he is comedic and lord knows a little laughter is great when trying to take in the events of these days. I think this is why journalists try to stir up trouble if they can't find any to report on.
  • #30
    @Zazziness Don't be naive. There's no such thing as a news outlet that sticks to the "facts". Everyone has a spin, everyone has an agenda. Jon Stewart is no different, neither is Meet the Press.....
  • R Load more replies

  • #43
    It's the media age. Way beyond television, the three major networks. When there were three networks, the competition was minimal. Now, with so many channels to tune to, the competition isn't for the Peabody award anymore, it's for ratings, sponsors.
    And who is to blame? We, the viewing public. We are the ones who lap it up! We want the drama. I can't imagine a journalism student not wanting to achieve the greatness of Murrow, Cronkite, Brinkley, Huntley, Downs, Edwards, Swayze and many more of the "pioneers" of broadcast journalism. But they work for da man. And da man says, "Sell the news, sell yourself, sell the network." Today, there are still some greats, but they still have to look into the camera and look good; be appealing in High Def. They can't just look into the camera as if they are looking you in the eye and telling you, " And that's the way it is.........."
    Cronkite was, in his days on the CBS Evening News, the most trusted man in America. So much so, that people wanted him to run for president. Cronkite scoffed at, couldn't stand, the way modern news programs had become so commercial.
  • #42
    Most of them want to see how far up Obama's *** they can climb...and since they won't report on any negativity and little reality in this administration, we may as well watch cartoons.
  • #41
    IMHO the problem lies with journalists themselves, and the irresponsibility with which the media jump on every little gaffe a candidate makes, blowing it all out of proportion. OF COURSE people will say dumb things now and then. We're only human. If the media would keep that in mind at all times and stop pounding on every little gaffe over and over on the air, candidates would not have to be so guarded and we would know them much better.
  • #40
    I have a an incredibly hard time watching media coverage simply because the I find the bias so offensive. The media and the politicians are all personalities. If it was truly about politics there would be more coverage on what is in a bill, who wrote it and what riders were added and by whom. News seems to have been redefined by fear and hate mongers skewing facts to fit their rhetoric. None of whom are held accountable for it. More fact and no opinions would suit me fine.
  • #39
    All news all the time is killing the news gathering business.
    When you have that much air time to fill, the least thing will be reported as controversial.
    Consider how much news time is talking heads talking about other talking heads.
    It's incestuous...
  • #33
    They want more interviews with that dumb B Sarah Palin witch represents today's Republican Party boy I feel sorry for John McCain I guess that's why he went crazy
  • #32
    The purpose of the mass media is to make money, and deceive people while doing it! They don't care about us, all they want is money and their guy to win!
  • #28
    The main thing the media wants is ratings/sales. If that means they have to create controversy they will. If that means they need to stretch and distort the truth, they will. I can still remember when reporting was fairly non-biased and the STORY was reported, not the OPINION of the story. Today, unbiased reporting is history, the problem is those reporting the news will never admit it.....
  • #26
    Blaming journalists for the frenzy that follows mis-statements is misplaced, I think. Someone has to make the statement to begin with, after all, and once it's reported that First Amendment effect kicks in and comments on the comment begin. Partisans use spin to advance their own agendas, naturally, and as information consumers we reinforce the journalism that pleases us most. The incentive to direct messaging to the lowest common denominator is inescapable.

    The great newspaper editor H L Mencken once said something like, " Nobody ever went broke underestimating the American public." If we are dissatisfied with the quality of modern journalism, perhaps we should begin its restoration by defining what it is we expect journalists to do, and then reward the reporters who meets those expectations with our attention.
  • R Load more comments...