***THAT'S IT!*** A reporter's breaking point in covering the Democratic Primary

[NYCGirl]

Wow.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/04/thats_it.cfm

I THINK my breaking point came yesterday morning when I received an email from the Clinton campaign criticising Barack Obama for not releasing his tax returns for 1997, 1998 and 1999. Notes like that should come with a little kitchen-sink icon pinned to them. Included in the missive was the obligatory reference to Tony Rezko—again this should be an automatic attachment. They can even label it "Obama’s Whitewater" if they like. I’d appreciate the irony. This was followed by a virtual flood of emails in which Clinton-supporting politicians (not one of whom I had heard of) expressed eerily similar outrage over Mr Obama’s “bitter” comments. Mrs Clinton herself, of course, has spent the past five days harping on the same subject.

Or perhaps my breaking point came today, when Bill Clinton, the most poll-driven president in history, claimed to have told his wife to forget about "the shifting polls and the daily back-and-forth" and focus on promoting her values. I’m guessing his actual advice sounded more like this. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041502664.html?hpid=opinionsbox1%E2%80%9D)

I’m not exactly sure when it happened, but my will has been broken. I’ve realised that covering Mrs Clinton's campaign without explicitly stating that it has turned into a win-at-all-costs operation fueled by phony outrage, hypocritical proclamations and absurd notions of who is electable and who is not is an exercise in deliberate deception, and I can't do that. Perhaps I am weaker than my colleagues, but a certain fatigue sets in when trying to sort through it all. Mrs Clinton does have substance, and some well-thought-out policy prescriptions, but did you know Barack Obama is an elitist? Never mind that the Clintons largely agree with what Mr Obama said, or meant to say.

Perhaps it is because Mrs Clinton is the underdog that the tone of her campaign is so different from Mr Obama’s. Her efforts to connect with different voting blocs have not worked—one day she’s a sniper-dodging commander-in-chief, the next she’s a gun-shooting woman of the people. Most of the time she simply looks like a caricature of the voters she’s trying to lure. And when it comes down to policy, there are simply not enough big differences between the two candidates to allow her to catch up. So she must make Mr Obama look unelectable. She must go negative. And she has.

That’s fine, but let’s be forthright about it. This is no longer a campaign based on ideas. It is a campaign focused on tearing down Mr Obama. We all know that’s her only shot at the nomination. I’m tired of pretending otherwise.

[underpants]

1. Who is the author?

I can't find a byline

this is very good. Of course the rest of MSM acts like her going negative means they both have gone negative and he clearly has not.

[Coexist]

2. I can't find one either.

Then again, I can see why!

[MADem]

7. My very question!!!! Obviously, this person is NOT a reporter!

What a lame piece of whining shit. And then, to not even sign one's work!!

But then....

[NYCGirl]

8. Yeah. The Economist, that's been publishing since 1843, is just a rag!

:eyes:

[MADem]

9. HEY--NAME THE AUTHOR...come on, cut the shit. No one is talking about the rag.

A favorite of the GOP, by the way, but never mind that.

Come on, name the author, quit with the childish eye rolling icon, and tell us WHO WROTE IT.

Or do you believe that there's some person running around by the name of Economist Dot Com, is that it? Do they call this person Dottie for short?

How pathetic, your post.

Answer the question--who wrote this whining diatribe?

[americanstranger]

12. That's their policy. No bylines.

Deal. Talk about pathetic.

- as

[MADem]

25. And my policy is to wipe my ass on stuff that is unattributed! NT

[crispini]

13. Here's a bit more info for you

About Democracy in America

Economist.com blogs are lightly moderated debates in which journalists from The Economist Newspaper, Economist.com and the Economist Intelligence Unit post their thoughts and observations, and which are open to comment and argument from anybody who cares to intervene.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/help.cfm#about

I had another look around the blog. It looks like NONE of the blog entries are named. It's an interesting way of handling it -- it looks like this is an anonymous journo vent blog. Interesting.

[MADem]

26. Any asshole can get on there and 'call' themselves a 'journalist!'

Gee, how in keeping with the internets!! Oh, I'm an astrounaut, and in my spare time, I race Formula One cars!

:rofl:

[crispini]

29. Well, that occurred to me,

but the blog referenced is the OP, not a reply. So it does tend to make me believe that the OP is in fact a journalist.

Since I'm at work right now I'm not really inclined to take the extra time to register over there and try to write an OP, or something other than a reply, at the moment, but perhaps you could do so and let us know what you find out?

[MADem]

30. I'd have to care sufficiently to debunk crap that goes on at a rightwing site, used by

"advocates" to shore up their "proof" that a Democrat is "bad."

That's the real pathetic piece in all this--using GOP ammo to smear a fellow Dem.

You thought it up, you go on and do it, when you're able, and report back to us at your convenience.

[Egnever]

31. LOL

[crispini]

32. Ok, ew?

[NYCGirl]

33. You're wrong about that right wing stuff. But don't let that stop you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist

When the newspaper was founded, the term "economism" denoted what would today be termed fiscal conservatism in the United States, or economic liberalism in the rest of the world (and historically in the United States as well). The Economist generally supports free markets and opposes socialism. It is in favour of globalisation and free immigration. It also supports social liberalism, which is often seen as left-wing, especially in the United States. This contrast derives in part from The Economist's roots in classical liberalism, disfavouring government interference in either social or economic activity. According to former editor Bill Emmott, "the Economist's philosophy has always been liberal, not conservative."<11> However, the views taken by individual contributors are quite diverse.

The Economist has endorsed both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party in recent British elections, and both Republican and Democratic candidates in the United States.

A history of The Economist by the editors of Economist.com puts it this way:

What, besides free trade and free markets, does The Economist believe in? "It is to the Radicals that The Economist still likes to think of itself as belonging. The extreme centre is the paper's historical position." That is as true today as when former Economist editor Geoffrey Crowther said it in 1955. The Economist considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability. It has backed conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. It has supported the Americans in Vietnam. But it has also endorsed Harold Wilson and Bill Clinton, and espoused a variety of liberal causes: opposing capital punishment from its earliest days, while favouring penal reform and decolonisation, as well as—more recently—gun control and gay marriage.<12>

The Economist has frequently criticised figures and countries deemed corrupt or dishonest. In recent years, for example, it has been critical of World Bank president Paul Wolfowitz, Silvio Berlusconi, Italy's former Prime Minister (who dubbed it The Ecommunist<13>); Laurent Kabila, the late president of the Democratic Republic of the Congo; and Robert Mugabe, the head of government in Zimbabwe. The Economist also called for Bill Clinton's impeachment and later for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation after the emergence of the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse.<14> The Economist supported George W. Bush's election campaign in 2000 and initially was a vocal supporter for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, but it has since called the operation "bungled from the start" and criticized the "almost criminal negligence" of the Bush Administration’s handling of the war, while maintaining, as of April 2008, that pulling out in the short term would be irresponsible.<15> In the 2004 U.S. election, the editors backed John Kerry.<16><17> The paper has also supported some left-wing issues such as progressive taxation, criticizing the U.S. tax model in a recent issue, and seems to support some government regulation on health issues, such as smoking in public areas. The Economist consistently favours guest worker programmes and amnesties, especially in 2006 when one article was titled "Sense not Sensenbrenner."<18>

[crispini]

35. Um, the Economist is RW?

This is the first I've heard of it.

I had a quick look over at Media Matters to see if they had some record of bias, they had exactly two listings:
http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/tags/the_economist

FNC, on the other hand, had 1448 listings! :rofl:

I'll do the other when I get a longer break. :D

[cali]

41. wahwah. MADem is puking whining again.

Of course, she's incapable of doing anything but whining and being outraged over Obama's relationship with his grandmother- or similar pressing issues. YOU are the one that's just pathetic with your ceaseless whinging.

[NYCGirl]

14. The Economist has never had any bylines:

The Economist does not print by-lines identifying the authors of articles other than survey articles and articles written by outsiders "by invitation." In their own words: "It is written anonymously, because it is a paper whose collective voice and personality matter more than the identities of individual journalists."<22> Where needed, references to the author within the article are made as "your correspondent." Rare exceptions to this rule occur where there might otherwise be a conflict of interest such as when reviewing a book written by someone connected with The Economist. Retiring editors are permitted one signed article.

The editorial staff enforces a strictly uniform voice throughout the magazine.<23> As a result, most articles read as though they were written by a single author, displaying dry, understated wit, and precise use of language.<24><25> The newspaper's popular style guide, often similarly dry and punchy, is published in print and online. <3>

The paper's treatment of economics presumes a working familiarity with fundamental concepts of classical economics. For instance, it does not explain terms like invisible hand, macroeconomics, or demand curve, and may take just six or seven words to explain the theory of comparative advantage. However, articles involving economics do not presume any formal training on the part of the reader and aim to be accessible to the educated layperson. The newspaper usually does not translate short French quotes or phrases, and sentences in Ancient Greek or Latin are not uncommon. It does, however, describe the nature or business of even well-known entities; writing for example<26>, "Goldman Sachs, an investment bank."

It strives to be well-rounded. As well as financial and economic issues, it reports on science, culture, language, literature, and art, and is careful to hire writers and editors who are well-versed in these subjects.

The publication displays a sense of whimsy, especially in article titles (preceded by a header that clearly indicates the subject area). Many articles include some witticism; image captions are often humorous and the letters section usually concludes with an odd or light-hearted letter. These efforts at humor have sometimes had a mixed reception. For example, the cover of the September 20, 2003 issue, headlined by a story on the Cancún WTO ministerial meeting, featured a cactus giving the middle finger.<27> Readers sent both positive and negative letters in response.<28>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist#Opinions

[MADem]

24. Ah, in other words, it's SO MUCH EASIER to fling BULLSHIT when you don't attach your name!

Got it!

I wouldn't call THAT "whimsy" though--I'd call it cowardice.

[ecdab]

42. You do know that many papers - including the New York Times -

run editorials every single day that are only attributed to the paper.

[CreekDog]

28. The author is The Economist

same as this article:

"Why food is in crisis—and what to do about it"

[blogslut]

10. Oh, give me a break

Why don't you just call up The Economist and find out who wrote it?

http://www.economist.com/help/DisplayHelp.cfm?folder=663392

[MADem]

27. You CAN'T. They won't tell! It could have been the cleaning crew for all we know!

No byline, no cred.

That's my take on it. Besides, they're rather the favorites of the rightwing, anyway.

[Usrename]

38. It makes it a lot harder to shoot the messenger, doesn't it?

Isn't that what people do when they don't like the message? They shoot the messenger and ignore what they were saying?

[dchill]

22. Don't know who the author is, but the second link...

from WaPO, is written by Dougles E. Schoen, who strikes me as more of a Clinton Tool than a reporter:

Hillary Clinton took an important step Monday toward winning the Democratic nomination by launching an ad targeting Barack Obama's recent comments about working-class voters clinging to "guns or religion." The ad is a marked change from her recent determination to use a positive message until the Democratic convention, but for Clinton to capture the nomination she needs to completely abandon her positive campaign and continue to hammer away at Obama.

Oh, really? Schoen obviously didn't pick up the radio ads that ran for a solid week before the Ohio Primary, intro-ed as "Campaign News Update" - with an official sounding reporter-style announcer relating the "news" about Obama contacting the Canadians about NAFTA - which was actually the Clinton campaign's ploy. I heard this ad many times in that short period, and it was a damaging lie. Clinton's "determination to use a positive message" is just another lie, not "news" - and Schoen is no reporter.

Shame on Clinton, shame on Schoen, and SHAME on the Washington Post.

[catnhatnh]

3. The Post gives me a great idea....

every time the Clinton camp pushes another "scandal" we should attach "water" as a suffix rather than "gate". What comes to mind when you see the term "Wrightwater" scandal? How well does it compare?
This usage will push the framing from today's minor smear being equated as "Nixonesque" to comparing Obama'd minor gaffes to a major Clinton investigation....Wrightwater, Rezcowater, Bitterwater

[TahitiNut]

4. "an exercise in deliberate deception" (Yup.)

"she simply looks like a caricature of the voters she’s trying to lure."

Absolutely. She's bitter.

:rofl:

[yurbud]

5. I like your dream ticket pic. Why didn't Clooney run against Arnold?

He could have done America a real service and neutralized a possible Arnold run for Senate and possibly president.

[NYCGirl]

6. My sig pic is a joke on my part. I'm sure Clooney would rather direct films. NT

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. She's turned into a pathetic caricature of herself. Confusing "tough" with bullying.

Somewhat like Bush and his chainsaw.

[americanstranger]

15. I think it's the result of focus-grouping to death.

Remember, the image for her campaign was crafted by that hack Mark 'Microtrends' Penn.

They probably fed 80,000 opinion polls into a computer and came up with a formula that might have looked good on paper, but plays like a bad caricature in real life.

The 'politically savvy' Clintons should really have known better than to take such sorry-assed advice.

[liberaldem4ever]

16. K & R!

[melody]

17. Kicking this for the mid-morning crew -- terrific piece

I'm not surprised someone didn't put a byline on it -- they would like to keep their job. Certainly Hillary Oakley will
shortly be gunning for them.

[kenny blankenship]

18. The author must really be rattled: forgot to say « Ça Suffit! »

Which would be proper form for a Hillary hating latte sipping elitist.

He or she probably has a fake British accent even though he or she lived in London all his or her life before deigning to come to America as a journalist to chronicle the squalid, provincial goings-on here from a tony, elite over-the-pince-nez point of view. What an elitist toff!

[Eurobabe]

19. Ouch. Truth hurts Hill. Or Sybil, whatever we should call her

Hillary scares me, because she is schizoid. One minute she is nice, the next she is a junkyard dog. You never know who you are going to get when she wakes up in the morning.

I saw Bill blabbering today too, he is as pathetic as she is --

After PA, I wish these people GONE.

[TragedyandHope]

20. Respect to the writer for speaking out

and shedding some light on how this race looks from point of view of the (honest) press.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NJmaverick]

23. I knew we were dealing with the "tip of the iceberg" syndrome

The attacks we have heard camp Clinton make in public, is nothing compared to the sleezy dealings they were committing behind the scenes.

BRAVO! For this writer to call them on it.

[AtomicKitten]

34. A blind man couldn't miss it.

Oy.

K&R :hi:

[FrenchieCat]

36. KICK!

[TwilightGardener]

37. She's positively ridiculous. I am convinced she would make a terrible President.

[liberalla]

39. * Wow * is right.

Reduction:

"...she must make Mr Obama look unelectable. She must go negative. And she has.

snip

It is a campaign focused on tearing down Mr Obama. We all know that’s her only shot at the nomination."


Let’s be forthright about it. I’m tired of pretending otherwise.
Bingo.

Interesting find NYCGirl, thanks for sharing.

[Warren DeMontague]

40. "a win-at-all-costs operation fueled by phony outrage" yup. That's Camp Hillary. nt

[RichardRay]

43. How I know The Economist is a reputable source

I've read 'the newspaper' regularly (although not religiously) for about 20 years and have found them to be consistent and informed. I appreciate the lack of 'personality cult' in their editorial policy and disagree strongly with the up thread posts discounting them for not putting a by line on every piece. What is written in The Economist is written by The Economist, not by any particular person.

But, what was really telling...

When I leave work late I often eat sitting at the bar at a local watering hole. I was sitting there one evening having dinner and reading The Economist. They do write well, and some line in a story made me snort while I should have been swallowing. When I'd caught my breath the person to my right asked me why I was reading that right-wing rag and what they could have possibly said that I'd find funny rather than disgusting. The person to my left chimed in the note that it was really a well known left wing mouthpiece and that anything written there couldn't be anything other than funny since no one could take it seriously.

I listened to the two of them quarrel for a few minutes, gaining confidence that any publication that could bring these two ideologues to blows has to be doing a good job.