Fixing the Talk Shows: C&L's Punditocracy Proposal
Jay Rosen recently wrote a post about an issue we've all discussed over this last five years. How to fix the lies that are spewed on the Sunday Talk Shows.
So instead I propose this modest little fix, first floated on Twitter in a post I sent out to Betsy Fischer, Executive Producer of Meet the Press, who never replies to anything I say. “Sadly, you’re a one-way medium,” I said to Fischer, “but here’s an idea for ya: Fact check what your guests say on Sunday and run it online Wednesday.”I would extend it to the hosts, as well, although that might spur initial resistance. As some of you have noted before, it is amazing that Pardon the Interruption on ESPN has a fact-check segment at the end of every single show, but the bobbleheads and their guests get to spew whatever nonsense they want, with little to no accountability.
And for us, it is a win/win. If people lie or make things up, there will be a publicized forum for correcting them. And once the guests start to realize they are going to be fact-checked, folks like President McCain might not be on every Sunday spewing bullshit.
During the Scooter Libby trial it was revealed that Dick Cheney manipulated Meet The Press for years which helped lead us into war with Iraq. The trial gave us tangible proof about the consequences this nation faces if distortions and manipulations are allowed to continue on our teevee's.
I'd love it if these shows brought on a bunch of interns and did hire a staff to fact check on the spot. They could do it very cheaply, but don't hold your breath. It's not only the Sunday shows that are the problem, though. I wrote about it in 2008 in my post below, and think it's relevant to have the discussion again.
(The above graphic is by Michael O'Hanlon, who is a perfect example of a warhawk who has been wrong most of the time.)
Punditocracy: A group of pundits who wield great political influence.
Here's a review of Eric Alterman's book called: Sound and Fury: The Making of the Punditocracy
Jake Tapper makes this observation on CNN's Reliable Sources in response to Jon Stewart pointing out how many pundits got their primary predictions wrong. This is something we've all been talking about on the liberal blogs for years now:
TAPPER: It's too bad there is no accountability for pundits the way that there is for doctors and brokers.
C&L and many other blogs have become the magnifying glass that scrutinizes the pundits who inhabit our airwaves and call them out when they are culpable for the many wrongs we see on a daily basis. Tapper hints at the fact that there should be some sort of culpability factor, but when we do it, they usually recoil in outrage.
Glenn Greenwald's email chain to John King is a perfect example of this reaction to valid criticism. Forget about the predictions game on an election cycle, because voters end up deciding the outcome, but how about when an issue like a possible WAR is being debated and the public only has the Pundit Class as their information messengers, so to speak ?
Here are a few things the networks can do to clean up their act. (h/t Nicole for some suggestions)
1) Set up an Ombudsman with a staff for each network that isn't an employee of their corporation and have a weekly segment devoted to policing the media. They will also be available to take complaints reported by individual citizens and investigate them thoroughly.
2) Replay clips of each pundit when they've been proven wrong and let them explain their positions and why they thought they were right and ask them how they will correct their mistakes in the future.
3) Keep track of their infractions and set up a benchmark, like a 3 strikes your out rule for pundits. When they hit the benchmark, suspend them for a period of time so they can reflect on their mistakes.
4) When they return to work, ask them why they should be believed in the future.
5) It would be nice if they stopped using pundits that we know have been wrong over and over again.
Please add to the list...
http://www.carm.org/images/shears.gif
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
What?!!?
You want to hold them accountable for what they say?
How unAmerican!!
I wish this would happen, but the odds are against it.
Wish the networks had to apply for a license every year and their record of lies and distortions would count against their renewal.
The arrogance, that because you're offended by something, no one should be exposed to it is offensive.
Change the channel, don't go. But don't tell me how or what to think.
Validating guests' claims requires time, resources, and expertise, all of which cost money. NBC News is a profit-making entity, relying on viewership to sell to sponsors. Fact checking either lowers profits or would come out of salaries of the unprepared, under-educated, and uninformed staffers and interviewer.
The proper way to prevent lies, half-truths, and spin is to prep before the interview and use only staff experts in the subject area. But if they did that, the big names would refuse to appear. Many (most?) declined invites to Russert's program. Most won't come on Rachel's, Colbert's, or Stewart's shows for just that reason. Lazy, empty-headed pretty boys get the big names instead.
All great suggestions. Unfortunately, does it really matter? We've seen these people caught in their lies over and over again and they simply a] deny they said it (even if it's on tape!) b] claim they were taken out of context c] say they were misunderstood d] don't respond at all e] create an even bigger lie. Once the rightwing echo chamber gets going it's difficult to stop. A "Wednesday fact-check days"? Most american brains don't retain important information 5 minutes after they've heard it let a lone 4 days. It would be much better if the hosts of these show actually did their jobs and were prepared to refute factual inaccuracies as they happen.
And much better informed! And willing to question officials' lie-mongering! Once upon a time, REAL journalists who took seriously the canard to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable" were on Meet the Press. Russert took MTP in an unfortunate direction, giving people like Cheney free rein. Even though Russert is gone, we are stuck with fruggers-with-Karl and others more interested in being "in" with the in crowd than in ferreting out the truth of government operations.
Here is Rumsfeld talking about OBL's huge caves. Command centers, a fortress, a complex, large enough for trucks and tanks. Rumsfeld let Tim spread the talking points. I wish the whole interview was on youtube. Unbelievable now and then...
39 seconds, CASE CLOSED on what hacks they are...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGhGHxw0mSo
The corporate media is gonna fact check their own??
Well then, why would the corporate media want to invest any money in that??
It's a symbiotic relationship between parasites.
Fact check -for Worthiness?!?
Bwah Hahhhhhh.
I'm not sure you're understanding just how it works -And It Does Work (for them).
The LAST thing any one in that cash-scramble hoedown wants or needs is to be bothered with facts.
... for the public to monitor the media. Every station is required to maintain a public file, showing the status of its license, and details on its community service programming.
The public can also file complaints against a broadcaster. However, the enforcement of regulation is spotty - we'll get our knickers in a knot over Janet Jackson's tit, but let the right wing cry, 'free speech, free speech' when it comes to parasites like Limbaugh and Beck fomenting violence.
You are not referees.
Take false equivalency out of your toolbox. That, in itself, will improve your fact count by leaps and bounds.
Objective journalism requires value decisions based on fact. False equivalency gives air time to people selling the other side, even when that 'other side' is factually incorrect.
If a doctor says drinking sterno is bad for you, it's not journalism to find a skid row alkie lovin' his squeeze and present it as balance.
"it's not journalism to find a skid row alkie lovin' his squeeze and present it as balance."
It is entertainment. You think anything masquerading as news on broadcast outlets during the Suday morninbg shows can be called "journalism"?
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
But at least it shows that someone working in the gorram industry understands the difference.
There is more "journalism" in your comment than on all the Sunday shows combined.
IMO
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
IMTUAO
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
I really hope something changes.
Some of the viewership is too thick to know the difference. The rest will always gravitate to the truth.
So much of the time the "truth" SUX - but the truth must be told.
"5) It would be nice if they stopped using pundits that we know have been wrong over and over again. "
THAT should be a given but in reality - it might be a good start.
Thank all that is good in this world that we are concerned and we are talking about solutions.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
Ahhh, you see, sad (but smarter) people watch less TV. The truth simply isn't right for our target demographic...
Ask them their opinion before going on Tee Vee and if their take is pure bullshit, don't have them on.
thinking.
that the 'pure bullshit' guests can drive up ratings, and in turn revenue.
"...because voters end up deciding the outcome,"
Really??
Really?
The misinformation of the punditocracy does most of its damage in this area. It's the root of the evil. How can you say forget it?
Now now - nobody in their right mind would try to sway an election. That would be un-American.
Why do you hate America? (JK)
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
One must first blame America. Or is it "blame America first"?
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
I thought it was blame Obama first and ferret out the facts at a later more convenient date.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
a) Irrational fear of teh "other"
b) Dashed hopes and delusions of being mislead.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
the problem is not the accuracy of the punditocracy, the problem IS the punditocracy. punditocracy is, almost by definition, about massaging the message, and accuracy is a rarity.
yet, the entire msm news establishment is based on punditocracy, instead of journalism. leaving the bulk of the voting public with only he said/she said reporting, instead of investigative/informative news reporting.
so, as things are now (making a sweeping generalization), people have to be informed when a pundit or newsmodel or politician says something inaccurate--instead of being informed enough to know that they are being fooled. and that is a dangerous place for a mature "democracy" to be in.
sunday "news" shows are void of actual news. they simply consist of partisan talking points being bandied about for hours on end. there is no way to fix that. i just stopped watching.
sundayALL "news" shows are void of actual news.Even the local news here is complete BS. The local news will tell of some local stuff but then they "report" the same BS as their parent company as "National News" - it is always the same talking points.
UGH!
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
Often times I find the local news to just be stuff said by people who have no idea what they are talking about. Giving facts for examlple about a certain animal that are completely wrong. I don't know if they are lazy or stupid.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
mutually exclusive.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
True!
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Yup - both - for the most part.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
as you point out, this is not just about sunday chatter-shows
What would really be nice is if people felt they should be truthful with everyone. If the political folks had a conscience and felt guilty for lying.
It would just be nice to feel you could trust people again.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
I could trust again but how will I know if I'm trusting a terrorist?
If we could only find a way to identify them, like a patch or something?
/snark
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
I do not see why terrorists should have a complaint.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Maybe they would like to have team t-shirts.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
I have a big problem with how different politicians are labeled in the media.Who is supposedly a far left Liberal,who is a "moderate" etc.
When someone chooses to label an opponent,then this too should be fact checked.
They should also be able to pass the "false equivalency" test.
This constant need of pundits to ascribe suspect behavior to the "other side" wherein the "other side" is usually of the *cough* "Democratic" persuasion.This need never seems quite as passionate running in the opposite direction for some reason.
"To me, truth is not some vague, foggy notion. Truth is real. And,
at the same time, unreal. Fiction and fact and everything in between,
plus some things I can't remember, all rolled into one big "thing."
This is truth, to me. "
-Jack Handy
Period. In any way. If they have a financial stake in advancing a point of view, they should not be given a free platform to push that viewpoint. If they want to advance a particular message to benefit themselves or their clients, they are not "pundits" they are salespeople. Let them buy commercial airtime rather than giving them a free platform from which to make their sales pitch.
Barack Obama: Change we can only imagine
goes to "Page Not Found". Please advise.
...maybe thats why they are ignored and marginalized
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4
... and arent you all getting SO sick of Amy Goodman and Noam Chomsky
constantly showing up on those Sunday Morning shows ...
I'm Boycotting NewsCorp! Heres what not to buy: http://www.cjr.org/resources/index.php?c=news...
Yeah that really is a big problem.Those two never shut the hell up.
"To me, truth is not some vague, foggy notion. Truth is real. And,
at the same time, unreal. Fiction and fact and everything in between,
plus some things I can't remember, all rolled into one big "thing."
This is truth, to me. "
-Jack Handy
I feel an obligation to myself and others to be honest. Why don't political people feel that same feeling? Does it get in the way of their purpose or goal? If it does, what does that say about them? I think it says they are okay with being a phony. That's sad.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
the majority of these guests are political whores. their opinion is bid-able. they are ok with being anything, as long as they are paid enough to be soulless. and they are.
[moved]
Dont just keep tabs on how often a pundit is wrong. Keep track of how often they are right. Then make each pundit give his "Fact to Truth" ratio at the beginning of each broadcast. After having to state "I am right one out of three times" before they begin speaking, may change things.
[moving]
they use words like, "In my opinion, could, if and many other words that don't make their comment a fact"?
Plus they are introduced as former general, senator, representative, governor but never introduced as a lobbyist for fill in the blank__________.
Starting a sentence with the words, "Some say" to me is the hint that a lie is on the way. If they know who is saying what "some say" then tell us. By saying, "some say" it's just a cheap way to bring a controversial subject to the conversation giving the guest an opening to catapult their propaganda.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
many Americans citizens or some other thing that actually probably means teabaggers.
sources tell us,it's been said,insiders claim,those close to,White House officials report,blah blah blah.
"To me, truth is not some vague, foggy notion. Truth is real. And,
at the same time, unreal. Fiction and fact and everything in between,
plus some things I can't remember, all rolled into one big "thing."
This is truth, to me. "
-Jack Handy
Why would the corporate media fix what they broke, on purpose, for their own benefit?
like snow in hell
mr amato, you just came up with an idea for a great new website;
"wed. fact check for meet the press sundays"
or something equally descriptive...you do that and they will follows suit, they can't have you embarassing them and their staff so they will do it if you do it
To be embarassed requires integrity. If they were capable of being embarassed, they would already be embarassed by C&L, Media Matters and a dozen other blogs.
MSM fact checks itself. Now, there's a doctrine of, um, fairness.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
It's an old practice of Goebbels during Nazi Germany.
If you control what the people know, you control them.
We have to start treating these people as nothing more than what they are. Propagandists for corporate america.
Why does Faux succeed? Because people don't want to think for themselves they want to have someone else to blame. They want to feel superior. If you pop that bubble there is always a gaseous explosion.
It's our responsibility. Corporations have NEVER done the right thing unless forced to. Remember seat belts?
Come on people, it's OUR responsibility.
The arrogance, that because you're offended by something, no one should be exposed to it is offensive.
Change the channel, don't go. But don't tell me how or what to think.
If one of the TV news shows did follow the 5 rules, i would absolutely watch. It would be great.
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Television shows that "need-a-fixin" (should just, not be watched)
as a matter of fact, even if "fact checkers were installed" ...I still wont watch it! (exept for occasional short clips of our goverment lying to us)
John Amato said,"I'd love it if these shows brought on a bunch of interns and did hire a staff to fact check on the spot.
I say, "factchecking" used to be the reporters job anyway! a good reporter already has "factcheckers" at his disposal! ...or is supposed to anyway.
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
Used to be about actually meeting the press. There was a panel of reporters from small papers around the country grilling the guest. Now it's just a puppet like David Gregory lobbing softballs.
republicans, bluedogs and Lieberman. Hard questions and grilling are reserved for liberals and progressives.
on those rare occasions in which they actually have progressives on. "Tell me, Congressman Kucinich, are your healthcare reform proposals more bolshevik in nature, or would you characterize them as Trotski-esque?"
"Well, I, uh --"
"During his recent meeting with Hugo Chavez, Sean Penn said capitalism sucks. Do you agree?"
"Well, I'm --"
"Your wife sure made a splash with your supporters during your campaign, but I wonder how many voters realize she's foreign."
And so forth
... kind of like a TV version of Media Matters. In my old home country of Australia we had such a show called Media Watch, and it did precisely what you are advocating for, John. Taking apart the false narratives, pointing out the disingenuous statements and outright lies from politicians and pundits alike - from all media sources - TV, radio and newspapers. It's something that PBS should do as a public service - but something tells me it would be popular (as it was in Australia) so probably the networks could do it themselves - if we can trust them to keep themselves honest! Keep up the great work, John -and as a musician, I love your music posts too.
...Stinkin' Facts!!
While I applaud and agree with your thoughts, John, and think your suggestions for a fix are also good.....the corpora-fascists who control the media and the 'message' (along with most everything else) are not about to make any wholesale changes to the way they do business.
And, why should they? They're making billions spewing lies and crap - if they told the truth, or any reasonable facsimile of the truth, they'd be out of business and out of money. Plus, the wholly-owned Congress will never enact any kind of legislation that would make positive changes. We're just gonna' have to keep trying to say what's real on C&L.....thanks for the op!
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
It's on ABC - Public TV - weekly - and is popular.
Nice example here -
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/...
Have each of those blowhards start their show an hour early. As each statement is made, it gets fact-checked unless it is clearly stated IN ADVANCE that what follows is merely the blowhard's opinion and has not been checked for truth.
Then play back the tape starting at the usual time. Every lie will be replaced on TV by a big red LIES, with the sound cut off. On the radio, the lies will be replaced by a cut from "Liar liar, pants on fire."
If the entire show consists of lies and nonsense, then an announcement will be made at the regular start time that Bilbo or Boba Bombast's broadcast consisted of nothing but lies and unmarked opinions and will thus not be heard, but Bilbo/Boba was offered the chance to clean up his/her act during the second hour, so if he/she managed it, the second hour will be heard as scheduled.
Working under conditions where facts are checked and opinions have to be clearly labeled as such in advance, those guys would give up and slink away in a week.
Two, actually.
1) most glaringly, the "journalists" who are conducting the interviews ought to be well-informed enough to know the truth and to shut down their guests when they make stuff up or try to spin the facts.
2) To Samson's point above, the punditry is the problem, it's all spin and opinion. So CALL THE NEWS "NEWS" AND CALL OPINION "STATION EDITORIAL."
Stations used to have to put "EDITORIAL" in big letters when the news anchor spouted their personal or company's opinions on air. Why has this simple policy been allowed to lapse over the years?
The FCC and the FTC each have the power to regulate the media. Why does the FTC allow Fox "News" to market itself as News when it's nearly entirely Editorial? That's simple marketing oversight. I'm in advertising, and the FTC would never let Coke call itself a Juice or a Healthy Alternative. So how can Fox News get away with marketing itself as "Fair and Balanced" OR even "News"????
It's not as if these pundits are ever bringing any new information to the table, so the interviewers ought to know at least as much as they do on these subjects. And while they're certainly entitled to their own opinions, but they're not entitled to their own facts.
I love this idea so much that I'm certain it won't ever happen.
Also -- instead of pundits and politicians all the time, how about having more experts in the area of discussion, like Diane Rehm often has. There are some smart, articulate people who never worked on anyone's presidential campaign or as a white house press officer. She also has journalists and partisans, but her show has rational and civil exchanges of ideas rather than talking points and talking over each other.
Ray McGovern "fact checks" Ronald Dumpsfelt...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MInHphR4zBg&fe...
one fine day MSNBC will hire someone to do this kind of thing....(NOT!)
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
Regarding "hiring a group of bloggers for on-the-spot fact checking":
Long before "Meet the Press" became the one-man Dog & Pony Show it is today, when the show first debuted (on the radio?), THAT was the original idea... for the guests to confront a panel of reporters that knew the subjects in-depth enough to challenge what was being claimed.
I've was "hoping" for a return to that format following Russert's death, and was seriously annoyed when they instead chose David "Rove's dance partner" Gregory to be the new one-man host with no journalistic credentials.
* There are two types of Republicans: millionaires and suckers.
"Mugsy's Rap Sheet": Recording history for those who seek to rewrite it.
We can probably forget any TV show researching what politicians say in order to get down to the bare truth. the right wing would go nuts as folks discover "facts have a left wing bias." No network would have the balls to consistantly call out the lies which I would guess would favor the left over the right about 60-40% on a truth meter. Much safer to play softball, take dictation, and just listen to all the BS. Way too many powerful and wealthy people are invested in things that are not true.
I think it would be easy enough to fack-check in real time. The host could have a dashboard for the truthfulness of the statements and the local producer/director could prepare video to debunk the lie. The debunking could be done at the end of every segment. The producers could get an army of volunteer fact-checkers to watch the show being and check for the sake of better content. The technology is there.
I would like to see a clock applied to each person's ability to talk, with time adjusted for the truthfulness in the prior segment. More time for more truth and less time for less truth.
I also like the idea of time-outs for bad behavior. After one appearance, we wouldn't see Pat Buchannan on any MSNBC/NBC show.
How about this idea...pundits post a 'truth bond' to appear on these shows. Their lies would reduce the amount of that bond that gets returned to them after the fact-checking. If there is one thing these folks respond to is a hit in their wallet.
I participated on the Washington Post in Q&As with Howard Kurtz and Gene Robinson. I mentioned the Rosen proposal and that the fact checks should also include the hosts and pundits. Howard Kurtz said he was aware of the Rosen proposal and agreed with it. Gene Robinson said jokingly, "egad, holding pundits responsible?" He agreed it was a good idea. In my questions to them I said I particularly find it objectionable pundits purport to be experts on every subject: economy, religion, military, health care, politics, etc. My comment was that I found it rediculous when George Will is the go to guy about climate change, Cokie Roberts is allowed to speak about how exotic and foreign Hawaii is and a pundit on CNN was concerned that Obama wore a polo shirt at his presser concerning the undiebomber.
I threw the topic out there in Swampland comments in response to some idiocy from Joe Klein. Most posters, left and right, agreed with the oversight. No response from Joe. Probably because I included in my arguement that seeing the same bloviating, echo chamber members, was mostly discouraging because they are BORING. I would hope people will start campaigning to the news outlets about appointing an independent panel of omsbudmen/women to address inaccuracies on air, on the networks. They should review not only the guests but hosts and pundits too.
And thank you.
Obviously you have access to these people.
Keep it up. Yes a campaign or petition would be a very good idea to submit to the news(?) info outlets.
How you can be in the same room with them is something I couldn't do. Not for very long anyway.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
My access was through the Washington Post on line Q&A. The post offers different pundits each day to communicate with. Try it.
Comments are closed on this entry