Bunker Mulligan "Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." ~Mark Twain

For a long time I watched Bill O’Reilly. He always had interesting topics, and a point-counterpoint format that allowed viewers to get some information that didn’t come out anywhere else on television. In the last year, though, he has become more like a combination of Dan Rather and Geraldo Rivera. I believe he might actually take that as a compliment.

I missed his show with Hugh Hewitt, transcript from johnny dollar’s place, and hat-tip to Glenn (of course).

Here is a man who knows nothing about blogs, and has tremendous disdain for us pseudo-journalists. And his mind is made up.

O’REILLY: So you’ve got a defamation pipeline right into Middle America.

HEWITT: But that happens in the mainstream media too. That happens at broadcast networks. Look what RatherGate did.

O’REILLY: Yes.

That “Yes” comes across as pretty condescending. Remember, Bill defended Dan against the blogosphere as a true journalist being taken down by rumor-mongers.

I think Bill is just a little sensitive, here. He spent a lot of years doing some tough assignments to get where he is (as he now tells viewers often), and there is a certain jealousy, I think, toward people like Glenn and the PowerLine Gang as johnny-come-latelys with more influence than he has.

Ah… long-distance pyschology!

Both Dan Rather and 60 Minutes have long been known for their willingness to take an interview and parse it so the words of parties involved come out just the way the story’s producer wants it to. Rather infamously did this in his expose The Guns of Autumn, and later in a show depicting Vietnam veterans in the same light as had John Kerry. He also took General Westmorland down the primrose path. When he attempted it with Bush 41, George walked out, and Rather never forgave him the snub. The crew at 60 Minutes, especially Mike Wallace, have consistently done the same. It makes for good television, and sometimes even achieved something worthwhile.

The Rathergate Report is the current hot topic, and Jay Rosen has some advice for CBS News. I think it is good advice, but Patterico doubts it will ever happen, and provides an example of why:

Goldberg tells a story that is relevant to Jay Rosen’s suggestion. A CEO who was the subject of a hostile 20/20 interview recorded the interview himself. Goldberg reports that the CEO, “fearing his comments might be taken out of context and that the interview might be edited to make him look bad, took the unedited transcript and video of the entire interview . . . and put it out on the World Wide Web.”

ABC’s reaction? They were not happy. Were they worried about their copyright? Nah. They were worried about their loss of control over what went the public got to hear. As an ABC Vice-President told the New York Times: “We don’t want other people attempting to get into and shift the journalism process.”

And another former ABC News Vice President, now a professor at the Columbia Journalism School, called the CEO’s action “a not-so-subtle form of intimidation.” Got that? In this former network news executive’s view, making the entire interview available — the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth — that’s “intimidation.” But editing it so that the CEO looked worse than he would have in an unedited interview — that’s not “intimidation,” it’s “journalism.”

That’s how these people think.

One thing the new media can do is eliminate this as a control issue. But it requires active involvement by the players. And it is becoming clearer that interviewees need to protect themselves. Hugh Hewitt addresses the value of blogs to corporate executives, but I’m not sure he had this in mind.

Those being interviewed by a “major media outlet” might want to consider taping the interview themselves, overtly if possible, and covertly if not. Interviewers ask for releases, and restrict the use of any recording. But if refused, they would have little choice. After all, they asked for the interview. If they don’t get it, do they have a story? And if they know the full interview is available for release, would they be less likely to parse it for spin?

“Protect yourself” is one of Hewitt’s implicit maxims. The new media can help.

I find it more than just a little sad. Businesses become dinosaurs when they fail to adapt, and accelerate that decline when they become arrogant. Such is the present for CBS News, once the ultimate news organization.

The Times jumps on the story, although not with a lot of venom–the NYT has had to deal with similar issues of their own. It may simply be Monday-morning quarterbacking, but there apparently some at CBS News that feared this eventual result:

But the production staff member said the staff at CBS did not feel powerful enough to bring about change. “We have no juice,” the staff member said. “We’re a dying business, and this didn’t help us. Some people feel like CBS News could be out of business in five years.”

I’m sympathetic with those in the organization who feel betrayed by those in power. And I’m not one who sees media bias as a bad thing, as long as it’s recognized. A vibrant media with conflicting views on a story only adds to the information we have. When all outlets tell a story in the same way, we miss out.

But one thing must be present regardless of bias–honesty. There are many ways the story could have been handled in a way that intellectual integrity was maintained, but it would have been a non-story. Unacceptable.

I don’t celebrate the failures at CBS. I’m sure there are some real professionals in the shop who will suffer because of egos at the top. But maybe, just maybe, someone in management will now listen when voices of reason speak up. They can still maintain their bias, just report facts and not speculation presented as fact.

****UPDATE****

Of course, Liberal Larry whines about four more jobs being lost during Dubya’s tenure.

When I set up Mrs. Birdie’s web site, I put her on a hosting service that allows up to three domains. So, I had a bright idea.

We’ll see if it really was.

I decided to take Hugh Hewitt’s advice in Blog, and established a news site for the Corpus Christi area. Most of you couldn’t care less because you’ve never been to, nor ever will visit our city. But a few of my readers are in south Texas and may be interested. Of course, I doubt I’ll ever manage to cover the kind of human interest stories we see at the Coober Pedy News, but I’ll do my best.

Michael will join me, as will a couple of others, in providing some kind of content there. And the site looks “okay” right now, but Michael, the web designer, has some other designs in mind. He doesn’t want to be embarrassed!

Unless you know of what you write, and have the skill to express that knowledge very well, it is best not to take on the guys at PowerLine, or their friends.

Nick Coleman should quit while he’s behind.

****UPDATE****

From Hugh:

Note to producers of cable shows that would like an audience: Book the Powerline guys and invite Coleman and Jim Boyd. Spread plastic. Tell the blogosphere. Watch the ratings rise.

I’ve not yet looked at Hugh Hewitt’s new book, but intend to read it as soon as I can. But I heard something on NPR yesterday that brought the differences between blogs and MSM to light a bit more. Bill O’Reilly made a comment about the internet being a vehicle for destroying someone with a “simple click of the mouse”, in spite of seeing that happen in MSM with far greater regularity. And I cannot even think of a time where the internet destroyed anyone. Paris Hilton?

The NPR report highlighted the destruction of beef exports to Japan, and the hope that the Japanese ban would be lifted this week. It wasn’t. Because it wasn’t, at least one meat packer has had to lay off most of its employees. I have no idea how many others have already done so in the last year.

Before the ban, Japan was the biggest overseas buyer of U.S. beef, importing $1.7 billion of the meat in 2003, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The ban began when a single cow was presumed to have Mad Cow Disease (Bovine spongiform encephalopathy). Japan and several other Asian countries cut off imports of beef from the US almost immediately. The fear was unfounded for many reasons:

BSE is spread only by the consumption of infected feed and is not transmitted from cow to cow.

So much for importing live animals. But what about the meat itself?

“One important thing to remember is that muscle cuts of meat have almost no risk,” Veneman said, emphasizing that the disease is typically spread by consumption of brain or nerve tissue, which did not enter the food system. “I know of no science to show that you can transmit BSE from muscle cuts of meat.”

Okay, so where is the link to Hugh’s book, and O’Reilly’s comments?

MSM did what they could to destroy the beef industry. Well, maybe not intentionally. But they built a story where there really wasn’t one. Yes, BSE being detected was something that needed to be covered. But the fact that it was immediately detected, and no other cases identitifed, should have been a signal that the safeguards in place worked. Instead, there was regular coverage of the potential epidemic, with little or no coverage of the science at work that makes the disease a non-factor for humans. Where was the coverage that explained why? Are MSM in business to provide information or simply build and destroy reputations–those of others and themselves?

We often talk about how MSM cover politics, but the recent tsunami coverage and this BSE issue show that their worldview is certainly far different than the one most of us have. They are quick to say Bush caused a turndown in the economy, but will they ever look into a mirror and ask themselves about personal culpability?