4 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
Who watches a flawed watch dog?, 2000-05-17
The fundamental reason for the public distrust and contempt for the news media is amply evident in this 96-page book analyzing coverage of the Lewinsky-Clinton affair -- Americans have never tolerated a "holier than thou" attitude from anyone. Now, don't get me wrong. This is a great book. It covers a recent major story and all of the hazards of reporting; in fact, it is what the print media does best when it investigates and reports controversey with depth, detail, discernment and presumed accuracy. But, after reading it, you'll understand why President Clinton continues to be popular and why the media is so reviled.
Clinton regularly apologizes for his mistakes. The media, even when egregiously wrong, never apologizes. It brings to mind a McNaught Syndicate "Grafitti" cartoon from the 1960's, "An editor isn't always right but he's never wrong." In other words, never accuse an editor of a mistake; instead, explain "Here's some added details that would have led you to a different conclusion had you had it beforehand."
`Warp Speed' piously quotes Walter Lippman's observation that a journalist's role ". . . is to sift out rumor and innuendo from fact and publish what one believes are facts." It ignores the common newsroom view that ". . . an editor's job is to separate the wheat from the chaff, then print the chaff." It may be somewhat cynical, but if the media were as cynical about their own performance as they are about the performance of everyone else they would be held in much higher regard.
It reminds me of news coverage about the Dec. 7, 1941, attack on Pearl Harbour. The media got the basic story right; but, most details in early stories were muddled, incomplete, inaccurate or even fanciful. That's expected in the fog and confusion of war. The Lewinsky-Clinton coverage was equally muddled, incomplete, inaccuratre and fanciful. That's to be expected in the fog and confusion of politics and instant news coverage.
The difference in today's world is the willingness of the media to rigorously investigate itself, which is about as objective as a church investigating the sins of its priests. Yet, a flawed watch dog is better than no dog at all. In this case, the investigating "dogs" are from Harvard and Columbia universities -- which style themselves as the College of Cardinals of journalism. It's like asking the Attorney General to investigate the President. Okay, "Who watches the flawed dogs?"
Two hundred and some years ago, the founders established a House and a Senate to provide "sober second judgment." It's part of the checks-and-balances of our society. Today, the House and Senate are run by political parties -- and the media provides the "sober second judgment" from city hall to the presidency. If it's "political," most people know it has little merit; if it's policy, the media highlights the issues. Who do you think has uncovered every major scandal of the past 25 years?
Barry Goldwater once called Richard Nixon the most dishonest man he ever met. The salacious details of the Lewinsky-Clinton affair were backdrop for whether or not "Bunco Billy" is now trying for the title. A politician accusing someone of lying is "politics." When the reputable media raises the same issue, it's good investigative journalism. Remember, Goldwater didn't comment until the media proved it to be true.
It's a welcome trend. Had the media investigated the Bay of Pigs or Tonkin Gulf resolution, we would have been spared much grief. This book is a great start in self-criticism. The media investigating the media? Sure. First question: "How many professions can be trusted to investigate themselves?" Second question: "How many will investigate themselves?"
Okay, who better to investigate the media? If the media can't investigate itself, then what can we trust it to investigate? By the end of this book, the media looks pretty good. Not because of the Lewinsky-Clinton reporting, but for this investigation. It's a fascinating inside look at "news values." They can be improved, but still, the media is refreshingly open to outside scrutiny.
So, who really investigates the media? The type of people who read books of this nature.
3 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
Easy-Read, Great-Analysis, 1999-12-05
I am just a young college student, but I think this is a groundbreaking book. Not many books have been written since the media explosion of 1996 that saw Fox News Channel and MSNBC sign on the air. The effect of this information explosion is profound and you see it nearly every time you turn on the news. Rosenstiel and Kovach focus on how journalism has changed from the era where verification of facts was the focus of a reporter, to this new type of journalism where the focus is on speculation, analysis, and commentary.
It is a really easy and interesting read, set to the story of Monicagate. I have walked away with a much better knowledge of the characteristics of this twenty-four hour news cycle. Enjoy!
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
Excellent analysis of state of the current and coming media, 1999-07-05
This is a first-rate analysis and explanation of the state of the news business. Looking with special care at the coverage of the Lewinsky story, the authors describe and demonstrate the ways in which the news business has gone awry. and in the final pages, they provide useful suggestions about how coverage of the news could improve. Readers will enjoy the description of the problems, will be interested to relive parts of the Lweinsky story, and will find the recommendations provocative. An excellent read for anyone interested in the press.