Yes, Joni Ernst is an extremist, thank you - Hullabaloo

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Thursday, December 4, 2014

Would Brian Williams Go To Jail To Protect A Source? Analysis of The Newsroom, Episode 4 by @spockosbrain

Posted on 7:00 PM by kitkat boom
Would Brian Williams Go To Jail To Protect A Source? Analysis of The Newsroom, Episode 4

by Spocko

 Daniel Ellsberg once said that he got the Pentagon Papers out to impress a woman. In his book Secrets Duncan Campbell at the Guardian said this about Ellsberg's story.
"It is also, in a way, a love story about how he fell for his wife, Patricia Marx, and her pivotal role in ensuring that the papers were leaked."
In the forth Episode of The Newsroom, Reese, the president of the company that owns the network ACN, is explaining to the female producer MacKenzie, why they can't run a big story. The new network owner's lawyers had advised him that the Justice department would hit ACN with "crippling criminal fines."



MacKenzie calls this horseshit and starts shouting about what everyone gave up for this story. Will, the anchor, might go to jail to protect the source. If the story doesn't get out she feels that it was all for nothing. Reese tells her why he thinks Will has been so willing to stand up for journalism for this story.
Reese: "Since the day you got here Will has been having a battle with himself, is he a real journalist or is he just good on TV? Did you ever think he might be doing this for you?" 
Mac: "I've got his ring on my finger he's not doing this to win my approval."
Reese: "Then it would be the first thing I've seen him do that wasn't. "
All this season I've been watching The Newsroom to see what Sorkin can tell me about some of the pressures that real people might feel in his fantasy network newsroom.

 I then compare what I see that meshes with the experiences of myself and others in the corporate world, the world of media and in our personal lives. My goal is to figure out how we might use those same pressures on the real network news to our benefit.

The Will/ MacKenzie dynamic is something that might be hard to replicate with the journalists at the cable and network news. Lots of people assume that the network news people have no values. But I don't think that is correct. I think that they are constantly trying to balance competing values and looking for excuses or reasons to follow one over the other. They tell themselves things like 'live to fight another day" when they back away from a story.

I wonder, do any of the Sunday show hosts or network news anchors have a MacKenzie in their lives? Do they care what anyone thinks about their journalism? Are they looking for an excuse to not do the best they can, or a reason to do it?

In this episode the broadcast version of the Snowden-like story is squashed because of nervous lawyers' opinion and the phrase, "crippling criminal fines."


Of course they could be wrong, but it is a standard acceptable excuse to a corporation to not run a story. Blame the government! It will cost us too much! They have internalized that their duty is to the shareholders, not to the public. (Go ahead and say it's all about money, money, money, but remember, MSNBC didn't care about the money when it canceled the highly rated and profitable Donahue show. News Corp kept the money losing Glenn Beck Show on the air with no advertisers.)

 Sorkin has shown us that money, "crippling fines," have the biggest impact on the network's ultimately behavior. If the parent corporation really wanted to make money on Sunday mornings shows they wouldn't have Chuck Todd talking to President McCain every week. They have other reasons for keeping those shows on.

Sure we can beg Chris Matthews, George Stephanopolis or Chuck Todd to honor their inner MacKenzie, but they might not have one. Instead, why don't we push the institutional investors, AKA, "The Almighty Shareholders" on how unprofitable the Sunday shows and the news divisions are?

Then the parent corp will start talking about its duty and quoting from the ignored FCC charters about "serving the public." They would be making long speeches about how essential the news is and how it doesn't have to make money.

When the TV networks decided that serving the public came after serving the shareholder, they became vulnerable to the same whims of advertisers as a sitcom. When they saw being "the press" as a way to make money from the access privileges and didn't feel the need to fulfill their other press duties, they became vulnerable to Wall Street's demand for quarterly profits.

In the end of the episode we see how people who try to hang onto their values in the network TV world do it. MacKenzie gets the story to a principled journalist, a 71 year old woman at the AP. The network that should have benefited from the scoop, ACN, won't. No guts, no glory.

Charlie, the network news president, thinks he has found someone who shares his values who will buy the network. But it turns out he was suckered by another rich person using the upcoming sale of the network as leverage for her own purposes.

I think this is Sorkin's way of reminding us that money people always have their own agenda that is only tangentially related to what a company actually does. They will say they are on the side of quality or schlock, as long as they get what they want at that time.

If "The Almighty Stockholders" don't buy into the fundamental difference of owning a "press entity" vs owning a Content Creator, they will let "The most trusted name in news" become a slogan and nothing more.

Network News Brands and Their Value

Is the news network brand damaged when they fail to identify who is paying retired generals pushing drone strikes and bombings? Is their paid compensation from Raytheon or General Dynamics relevant? Or doesn't it matter if "everyone is doing it?" Does that mean failing to identify the drug companies behind doctors is next? Would that hurt their brand? Why identify one funding source and not the other?

Sorkin is also showing us that individuals can maintain their values in an organization that says it can't afford to have them. Right now the individuals pay the price. At one point in this episode MacKenzie challenges the source to flee to Venezuelan or face a grand jury instead the ACN staff. The source responds,
"Do you really think the price for telling the truth should be that high?"
MacKenzie shakes her head, "No I don't."
Who is paying the price for the failure of our network news? We know who benefits.

To quote John Stewart to the hosts of Crossfire, "Stop. Stop, stop, stop, stop. Stop hurting America."
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to Facebook
Posted in | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • QOTD: "I obviously did not mean what I clearly said"
    QOTD: "I obviously did not mean what I clearly said" by digby Oh wait, he didn't mean that either: Charles Krauthammer had a ...
  • QOTD: Bob Corker
    QOTD: Bob Corker by digby Let's forget about all that oversight nonsense, shall we? "To me, Congress having oversight certainly is ...
  • QOTD: Wingnut hysterics
    QOTD: Wingnut hysterics by digby I've got your freedom loving, anti-government tyranny patriots for you right here : On a long and inter...
  • Why we still fight
    This post will stay at the top of the page for a while.  Please scroll down for new material. Why we still fight by digby Since it's Hol...
  • Why not hire a professional liar to tell the "truth"?
    Why not hire a professional liar to tell the "truth"? by digby   So, I'm watching Wolf Blitzer chat up former CIA honcho Bill ...
  • Why what we saw was totally not torture by @BloggersRUs
    Why what we saw was totally not torture by Tom Sullivan All the news about the CIA torture program reminded me of those batches of FBI email...
  • A little sunshine burns the suits
    A little sunshine burns the suits by digby Think Progress reports: After leaked emails in the Sony hack showed unequal pay between male and ...
  • Why you ... you want to punish success! by @BloggersRUs
    Why you ... you want to punish success! by Tom Sullivan I wanted to follow up on Steve Fraser's comments to Bill Moyers . Fraser is wo...
  • QOTD: Chris Matthews
    QOTD: Chris Matthews by digby Today on Chris Christie: I sort of liked his style in the beginning before I realized it was for real, you kno...
  • What can possibly excuse the police abusing a blind man?
    What can possibly excuse the police abusing a blind man? by digby Does it get any more callous that this? On August 27th at approximately 8...

Blog Archive

  • ►  2015 (157)
    • ►  January (157)
  • ▼  2014 (343)
    • ▼  December (217)
      • Biggest scandal of 2015?
      • Conservative strategery, feature not bug edition
      • I have no idea what I'm doing so put me in charge
      • It looks as though the big, bad gummint has some f...
      • A turning point?
      • What's left of our schools once the Midas cult mov...
      • All too predictable
      • Dispatch from torture nation, year end wrap up
      • "Law and Order" gets renewed for another season #I...
      • An NYPD work stoppage?
      • Education: Testing the testers by @BloggersRUs
      • So you don't have to ...
      • It's time to play Guess The Village Scion
      • A quote from a presidential candidate
      • And they have a different word for everything too!
      • The revolutionaries of evunthelibrul you-know-what
      • Protesters aren't giving up
      • Accountability and obeisance by @BloggersRUs
      • The GOP crazy train left the station long ago
      • When is Giuliani time going to be over?
      • QOTD: crazy lefty edition
      • Sunday Funnies
      • There's no need to parse race and class and inequa...
      • 2015: Imagine greater by @BloggersRUs
      • Saturday Night at the Movies: Dennis Hartley's Top...
      • Don't lose your nerve
      • Is the GOP coming around or just changing strategies?
      • Insults fly across the continents
      • What was that they were saying about "the tree of ...
      • No biggie
      • Addicted to fear by @BloggersRUs
      • Who's the real Scrooge here?
      • Don't tell Rush, but his favorite heroes aren't real
      • Does Bedford Falls need an armored vehicle?
      • 10 years ago today
      • More police professionalism
      • What's in a racial label? by @BloggersRUs
      • If we want it ...
      • "Get the kid his peaches"
      • I found Zuzu's petals
      • Christmas monsters
      • They said there'd be snow at Christmas
      • We love a good redemption story by @BloggersRUs
      • A little Christmas Eve treat
      • "Let the children enjoy this night tonight. Tomor...
      • There are acts of patriotism and then there's this
      • Trump-l'œil
      • A Huckleberry Christmas Question
      • Rewarding failure by design? by @BloggersRUs
      • I'm not sure I agree with you a hundred percent on...
      • Reflexively whining at criticism doesn't breed res...
      • QOTD: Rand Paul
      • They've got a prince, a couple of doctors and a bu...
      • I try not to sing out of key
      • Human sacrifice economics
      • Rolling boxcars
      • Why you ... you want to punish success! by @Blogge...
      • The mayor's mistake
      • FYI: no criticizing of the government allowed
      • I happen to have the founders right here ...
      • Hateful talk in glass houses
      • Guns, cops and freedom
      • Fables of freedom by @BloggersRUs
      • With a secret service elf in tow
      • Learning from Gitmo
      • When the authorities get hysterical they make them...
      • Sam Brownback's supply-side snake oil continues to...
      • Your little darlings are their cash cows by @Blogg...
      • Saturday Night at the Movies by Dennis Hartley: Cu...
      • Daddy, may I? #forcedchildbirthedition
      • So the "I was only following orders" defense now o...
      • Why we still fight
      • Merry Christmas, punk
      • Glenn Greenwald on independent blogging
      • Whistling towards Dixie by @BloggersRUs
      • Baby please come home (for the last time)
      • Don't fool with Mother Nature
      • And yet they insist that America never executed an...
      • It's that time again --- Holiday Fundraiser at Hul...
      • The sanctimonious hypocrisy is almost too much to ...
      • Teaching and Table-Waiting by tristero
      • Why what we saw was totally not torture by @Blogge...
      • Stevie we hardly knew ye
      • The torture queen and the black muslim plot
      • Doctors without boundaries. When will the medical ...
      • The 50 caliber nutcracker
      • America didn't cave. Hollywood didn't cave. Capita...
      • Obama Can Restore Overtime Pay to 1975 Levels With...
      • In this corner, wearing blue, Elizabeth Warren by ...
      • Historic speeches on the way out the door
      • Down the rabbit hole again
      • If we don't defend the torturers, the terrorists w...
      • QOTD: St Ronnie
      • My take on Jebbie
      • Cuba libre
      • Colbert: Going out on a slab? @BloggersRUs
      • Oh mom
      • QOTD: The first president
      • Panchito's back and Jebbie's happy
      • A gestation vessel mistakenly thinks it is human
    • ►  November (126)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

kitkat boom
View my complete profile