Why The New York Times Controversy Is Missing On The “Evening News”

(AP)
I asked Rome Hartman, executive producer for the “Evening News,” about why the program has not covered the ensuing flap and the implication that it was downplaying the importance of the story or covering for The Times. In an e-mail, Hartman responded:
Simply, I don’t think it’s such an interesting story, and I don’t think the audience cares much for stories by the press about the press. Perhaps we should have run the president’s comments the other day about how it’s disgraceful – other than that, no regrets. If we’re covering up for The Times, it’s not working out so well. I just don’t think there’s much to the story for us. They went with their story, they’re under attack for doing so.My two cents: I tend to agree with Hartman that, except for hyper-focused people like us at Public Eye and politically charged observers, the general audience isn’t all that interested in stories about the press. And it’s hard to argue that the “Evening News” is somehow helping to bury the story. But when a story reaches the level of chatter and political maneuvering that this one has, isn’t there some angle of interest worth running? At least up to this point, Hartman doesn’t think so, and it’s his call to make whether we agree with it or not.
-
by memekiller
June 30, 2006 10:06 AM PDT
- I think there is a point at which the story is worth covering, but I applaud CBS for not following the pack. The problem is how it is covered. You seem to intentionally do it in such a way as to promote the fact that you're a bunch of liberal hippies out to bring down the administration. Nothing could be further from the truth. The NYT, via Judy Miller and others, has been one of the White House's most effective enablers, by legetimizing the WH disinformation. There's no context by which to judge. In fact, your treating every smear, no matter how rediculous, as worthy of serious, even-handed discussion makes it seem as though there is actually some merit, when in fact, it's absurd. On the other hand, very reasonable positions on the left are treated as if radioactive, making them seem extremist.
Thinking an insurgency might arise in Iraq was unspeakable. The idea of even censuring this President is unthinkable to even mention, it's so far out there. In the 90s, by contrast, MoveOn.org was formed for the singular purpose of censuring Clinton so we could move on to the business of the country.
The media has made it clear they feel Clinton's crimes were far, far worse than Bush's by the choices they make. When a station refuses to accept money to run ads of liberal groups, but run any smear by Republicans, they are using their reputation to declare liberal political ads irresponsible, while endorsing the Swift Boat Vets.
-
Reply to this comment
-
See all 16 Comments