Rusted Sky

Might not even be getting the story - much less the whole thing.

Admittedly, this is pretty much tabloid-grade stuff. But - considering some of the speculation that Edwards was first VP grade material, and now down to a 'cabinet level' post - wouldn't it be even SLIGHTLY newsworthy that he had a mistress while his wife's breast cancer is progressing? Oh, silly me - he's a Democrat. A Republican, however - would be front-page news.

But this isn't even backpage.

Edwards and the agony of the MSM. - By Mickey Kaus - Slate Magazine#getitsecond#getitsecond#getitsecond

As things stand, here's a rundown of media performance on the John Edwards front:

--The New York Times doesn't tell you what happened yesterday.

--The print edition of the Washington Post doesn't tell you what happened yesterday.

--Newsweek doesn't tell you what happened yesterday.

--Time doesn't tell you what happened yesterday.

--Katie Couric didn't tell you what happened yesterday.

--Brian Williams didn't tell you what happened yesterday.

--Charlie Gibson didn't tell you what happened yesterday.

--RealClearPolitics doesn't tell you what happened yesterday.

--HuffingtonPost doesn't tell you what happened yesterday (and it's their story!). I blame the commenters.

--Mark Halperin doesn't tell you what happened yesterday.

--Mark Ambinder doesn't tell you what happened yesterday.

--One Roger Simon tells you what happened yesterday--but the other Roger Simon doesn't!

Has the gap between what the MSM lets you know and what happened--and what you can easily find out happened--ever been greater? ...

We just didn't realize quite how far it went.

I have to admit, it gives me a great deal to think about. This is going to be a quick summary of my memories of the media coverages of the last 30-40 years, so if you don't remember the same things or see them the same way, I'll certainly understand. But I think a lot of our recent history has been shaped by attitudes generated by the media.

Viet Nam was the first real media war where the media varied the 'spin' on how we were supposed to think about it - from winnable to lost - and what was actually going on in-country didn't matter. Then, after Nixon, we had the Ford administration - and he was played as an ineffectual buffoon. Carter was played up during the run in '76 as the 'Saint', holy and virtuous and even admitting in "Playboy" he lusted in his heart - and without looking I couldn't even tell you who he was running against.

By that point, the media was fiddlin' with the controls like someone trying out differing settings in a video game. Reagan managed to win by out media-ing the media, and he kept it up for 8 years. Bush Sr. wasn't so adroit - and who doesn't remember his "Read my lips - no new taxes" pledge that was broken? Clinton was played up as the new, fresh guy who would take us forward... and I'm thinking Bush Sr. was just as happy to retire after 12 years in the White House.

The media knew about Hillary's tirades in the White House, and no matter how they spun it she wouldn't cooperate so they could show her as an appealing enough figure to get her medical plan passed. Yay, she baked cookies. Big whoop. Election time comes around, and you've got Mr. Viagra Dole popping up, but he wasn't stiff enough competition for Clinton, especially with Perot lending a hand. (Oh, lord. Heck with it - I'm on a roll...)

Then we've got Bush against Gore - the friendly guy against the stuffed-shirt. I think the media tried a bit on that one to see if they could portray Bush as being better than Gore - amd at the last minute they had to bring up decades-old drunk-driving charges to try to push the election to Gore. It almost worked... but I think it was a little too overt, a little too noticeable.

And then the Recount Frenzy begain. Did you get pretty much used to all sorts of ballots getting discovered here and there across the nation - oddly enough in states where the margins were razor thin? My brother told me about an election in Washington state where the REPUBLICAN candidate won by a slim margin... and the Democrat contested it. Oddly enough, a couple of boxes of uncounted ballots showed up from a very Democratic precinct... and they were just enough to give the Democrat an unassailable margin.

Yet no investigation was ever done as to why those boxes suddenly appeared. Didn't much matter, I guess - the proper candidate was in office, and that was all that mattered, right?

Yeah. Sure.

Then 9/11 hit - and for a while the media played it straight. But the Afghanistan campaign started up - and all you heard day after day was "Quagmire! Bogged down! Losing momentum!"... while we won.

Obviously - truthful reporting of battle conditions is diffiicult work. And you've got to be careful about giving out too much information, because CNN's a worldwide thing at this point and your enemy might be listening. But the military learned the media wasn't trustworthy in Viet Nam - and didn't figure they'd have changed, and I think the media felt put-out that they weren't trusted by the military.

Besides - winning isn't a good story in wartime if you're worried about your ratings. You need a hook - something to keep people tuning in. So every delay was a quagmire, every battle something that'd never been done and possibly would never be... until we finished up combat operations considerably sooner than we could have imagined a decade ago.

The MILITARY had changed - but the media hadn't.

Let's look stateside real quick for one shining example of how NOT to cover a disaster.

Katrina. Remember the riots inside the stadium, the dead bodies, the cannibalism? Remember how, in the cleanup, it DIDN'T HAPPEN the way the media reported it? But they were looking for hooks - for ratings boosters - and if cannibalism isn't gonna get you to tune in again in a half-hour, nothing will! The need to get the viewer BACK and the demands of a 24-7 news cycle combined to create a journalistic fiasco.

This is getting pretty long - but I think you can draw your own conclusions. Journalists project a story with words. Reporters tell what's happening. A reporter can function as a journalist - but a journalist is too busy telling the story inside his head to really make a good reporter. There are exceptions - Michael Yon and Michael Totten come to mind - but they're not primarily graduates of a 'reality-based' academic environment, both have spent a LOT of time in the real world in some pretty unpleasant places.

Are even THEIR reports the whole story? Of course not. You NEVER get the ENTIRE story. But you can get enough information from enough sources to be able to tell the shape of the story, and be able to piece things together like a jigsaw - then make out the shapes of the pieces that should be there, but are missing.

And if you look back, it seems like there's a LOT of missing pieces that you were told were there... which can change how you see and understand unfolding events.

Which makes you wonder when you see the news or read the paper... what aren't they telling?

And lest you think I'm going all conspiracy-crazy here - look at the coverage of Obama, and of McCain. Even hournalists are noticing.

Media's guilt plays well for Obama and McCain -- chicagotribune.com

Did you ever notice that when John McCain is on TV he's always grumpy?" asked a colleague in the cafeteria who whispered, lest others denounce him for Barackian Thought Crimes.

McCain's always made to look old and angry, a curmudgeon. And Barack Obama? He's always seen as presidential, cool, smiling, shaking hands," whispered the guy.

I believe this phenomenon is called liberal bias. And the country has caught on.

Which might explain why Obama and McCain are even in the polls. Where would Obama be WITHOUT support from the MSM?

J.