The Clintons easily get several hundreds of millions of free positive publicity 24 / 7 by the NY / DC news organizations. It is pathetic. Even with that being the case, the voters may pick some one else, so why won’t the media take a break from playing king maker and let the public decide on who they want to be the next president. I truly believe most people see through this stuff and are quite annoyed by the media’s behavior when it comes to elections.

Is there any more fundamental J-School orthodoxy, or for that matter, any more basic rule of high-school composition, than the prohibition against weasel talk?

I really thought that slipping unsourced wisdom into stories and crediting the all-knowing and ever useful “some” was so scorned that reporters would be embarrassed to try it.

Apparently that’s not the case. I just looked at a few newspapers and realize that it is still alive and well, albeit done more subtly than the nonsense about Hilary you cite.

It reminds me of a (now) funny story from grad school. Early on I turned in a paper to a great professor who I desperately wanted to impress. Like many a young aspiring PhD, I threw in an s-load of weasel talk that, 25 years ago, was what I thought passed for gravitas. I pumped that SOB so full of the passive voice that you couldn’t tell who I was, what I was saying, who the sources were, or any damn thing about anything. I might as well have simply written two words on the page like “some say” and ended it right there.

Her written comments were so brutal that, out of embarrassment, I never looked at her again.

Looking back, I owe her as much as any teacher I ever had. By nailing my behind to the wall and reigning in an already over-developed bullshit artist, she forever made me wary of passive and weak language that hides or obscures or tries to finesse truth.

I had a relative who always attributed the supposed efficacy of folk remedies to “they.” “They” was brilliant because “they” had a depth of knowledge that allowed “they” to endorse almost anything.

And now “they” is alive and well in the paper of record.

Oy.

“…Mrs Clinton’s fundraising success came even as some Democratic elected officials, who were so intimidated by the frontrunner’s clout that they feared saying anything negative about her on the record lest they become a lightning rod for retaliation, continue to have concerns about her electability…”

I can hear the outcry – this person did not vote the Reps wishes – well what else is new.

This would allow elected officials to do their jobs instead of posturing all the time. Obama has missed many votes as he runs around the country raising money. Another approach would be to require anyone running for a new office to resign from the old one first. If you want to spend all your effort on getting elected then at least be honest about it and take your chances. At a minimum it will show your commitment. Hedging your bets doesn’t give a good impression for someone claiming to want to be president.

Speaking of which, how about reforming this aspect of elections as well? The amount of money needed to run for office has gotten so large that only the wealthy or those beholding to the wealthy can afford to run. This is not a good thing for a true democracy where people of all stations in life should be able to get elected. Is it any wonder that policies have favored the wealthy over the past 40 years?

No sane Democratic elected official is going to want to be quoted saying negative things about the party’s top fund-raiser and potential Presidential nominee, unless they’ve got some agenda that makes it worth it to take that hit of putting themselves out there as the lightning-rod.

To absolutely insist such a statement must have an on-the-record attribution leads to an absurdity that serves nobody except for rewarding the ability of the powerful to intimidate people.

So today Zucker visits Washington to address the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and ask lawmakers for tougher penalties for music and video pirates, to keep consumers from pirating copies of “Heroes” and the rest of his shows. Zucker is not asking lawmakers for economic relief to offset industry losses attributed to piracy.

Please explain the last sentence in that graph? It just hangs out there as a non-sequitur, waiting to either be followed or refuted by something.

Since this was a “advancer” story, the reporter doubtless got the information from Zucker’s people, who wanted to spin Zucker’s position as the lesser of two evils.

Is this our job?

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-montana30sep30,0,1392485.story?coll=la-home-center

Yep, the Times should’ve named names or at least linked to such a story.

It reminds me of those old movies and radio shows where everyone talked in that stilted, artificial way that you occasionally see being made fun of today. News seems to be the only part of the mass media where the natural voice is not yet welcome. That’s a big reason why blogs are the breath of fresh air that they are.

I’m thinking Sting’s words play out in this election – ‘you find your servant is your master’

pick the right one msm & sorry wall street

The pathetically transparent attempts like this one are easy to spot, fortunately. Let’s not forget, however, that Karl Rove is still swimming around out there, ostensibly ‘retired’…yet always HUNGRY…

Would it KILL them to attribute an observation like that? Expand on it? Prove it? It is the worst kind of lazy “reporting.” It seems as if “balance” has been reduced to offering up often unattributed opposing views, seemingly by rote. To my mind, the assertion that she has no coat tails would be interesting to explore. How is it even knowable?

I don’t pretend to know the answer to this but is is POSSIBLE that opinions are taking shape at this early date re: the Dem nominees and perhaps voters are becoming comfortable with Mrs. Clinton? Just a question…

As for Rupert, he’s a businessman before he’s a liberal/conservative, his media outlets will take whatever perspective makes him more money, no shame in that, unless there is shame in giving people what they want.

For those who beleive that Newpapers should ‘challenge people’ or ’strive to enlighten/educate people’; I ask, says who???

… and lastly, as Jeff points out … what is this story doing so prominently placed? It’s pure drivel; write a real story or don’t write one at all.

I agree with Jarvis: name those officials please. The New York Times is supposed to insist that its reporters explain why they using unnamed sources when they do so. This example smells suspiciously as if those elected officials exist most vividly in the reporter’s imagination.