- ‹ previous
- 878 of 8807
- next ›
Mark Sanford and the Media
The State has some emails of right-wing media types sucking up to Mark Sanford's office. Josh Marshall calls this "Hacks on Parade." Steve Benen admits that "media professionals may try to curry favor with a source (or potential source) in the hopes of landing a bigger story or interview," but goes on to parse this story far too finely:
[T]his Sanford story seems different, to the extent that conservative news outlets communicated to aides for a conservative governor that they're on his side.
But it's not what the conservative outlets tell Sanford that's the issue. It's what they do. Take Stephen Colbert's email to Sanford's office, for example:
As you may know, I declared myself Governor of South Carolina last night. I went power mad for abut 40 seconds before learning that Gov. Sanford was returning today.
If the governor is looking for a friendly place to make light of what I think is a small story that got blown out of scale I would be happy to have him on. In person here, on the phone, or in South Carolina.
Stay strong, Stephen
Colbert's message highlights what's actually going on here. Colbert may or may not believe that the Sanford thing was "a small story that got blown out of scale." But he's clearly sucking up to get access: he's going to play it for laughs on the show. He certainly won't help keep it from being "blown out of scale," if that's what he really believes happened. Does anyone really think that it's only places like the WSJ and the Washington Times that do this sort of thing? How many journalists have told a source, "we want to get your side of the story out" when the story is already pretty clear from more reliable sources?
It's a hard truth, but Janet Malcolm was right about the journalist:
He is a kind of confidence man, preying on people's vanity, ignorance or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse. Like the credulous widow who wakes up one day to find the charming young man and all her savings gone, so the consenting subject of a piece of nonfiction learns—when the article or book appears—his hard lesson. Journalists justify their treachery in various ways according to their temperaments. The more pompous talk about freedom of speech and "the public's right to know"; the least talented talk about Art; the seemliest murmur about earning a living.
Bottom line: it is neither surprising nor unusual that media figures were trying to flatter Mark Sanford while he was the biggest story in America.
not the best example
Colbert isn't the best example. Maybe he was hoping to find one of those conservatives who doesn't get that Colbert is doing satire, but he's so different from conservative media that he doesn't really fit the post, though obviously if you're writing just about e-mail from media received by Sanford, then Colbert is an interesting bit.
Maybe really a candidate for governor? Is it about to be vacant.
http://www.ravensblog.net
Nick, you do realize you're
Nick, you do realize you're comparing the conduct of a variety comedian with that of the press? I'd let Colbert, and Stewart, and the Tonight Show, and most other entertainment talk shows slide on a lot of things I'd never let straight news media get away with.
I'm not surprised that the Press will suck up for access -- in fact, I think that's often a big problem with the Press, because once they promise to be sympathetic, they usually are. To some extent, the sucking up is understandable, but in the Sanford case, some of the statements made seem pretty over the line.
The line
Where do you draw that line? I tend to think that the proof of one's objectivity or loyalty to the truth should be in the final product, not the things one says or does to convince a source to talk. I didn't mean to imply that Colbert=a journalist--just that his conduct is a more explicit version of what the journalists are doing. And what's the line between "straight news media" and "entertainment"? What is Morning Joe? What is Countdown? It seems to me that there's a lot of entertainment in those shows, too.
As you hinted, it's not whether you promise to be sympathetic--it's whether you end up being fair and accurate, or not.
Sanford
I'm not very concerned about journalists--or Colbert's--efforts to talk to Sanford. I would do the same, as a freelancer, as a matter of course.
Bottom line: Sanford is a bum who deserves all he gets. When will Republicans begin applying their own standards to themselves?
Mark Stanfor can be best
Mark Stanfor can be best associated with The Family. Members of the lobby (you could say) The Family, who reside at the C Street house in Arlington, VA – outside Washington DC, Congressmen, are looking to establish a Christian Totalitarian State in the US, where political leaders are accountable to none because they are "chosen" people. Members like Mark Sanford, John Ensign, and Todd Tiahrt, while being staunch Christians, have ALL had affairs in office. (You aren't supposed to – it's in the Ten Commandments!) People who like rationality, sense, and accountability in government would give cheap loans to get rid of The Family.