Short People

Dear MSM:

You know I love you. I do–you give me information I can’t get anywhere else. You give me interviews with Susan Boyle. You show me videos ofsneezing baby pandas. You even occasionally ask major public figures tough and interesting questions.

Which is why it pains me to point out that there are other people, non-reporter people, asking much better questions than you do.

Very short non-reporter people.

Yes, I know this has been blogged to death. But I think there’s something else we can take from this. Not all MSM reporters are stupid, but I think it’s safe to infer that at least some reporters are stupid, and I have one in mind in particular–I’m looking at you, David Gregory. (Rememberthis little gem?) How many times did you or your predecessors at Meet The Press have a shot at Condi Rice on camera? Did any of you ask that question? Hmmmmm?

So my question is this: Would it be wrong to assume from this sequence of facts that reportorial acumen is inversely proportional to height and/or hat size?

If so, I should be moderating Meet The Press.

5 thoughts on “Short People

  1. Of course, the reporters aren’t free to act independently of those above them in the organizational chain. That’s one reason I think the local college newspaper is head and shoulders above the local MSM (and the college doesn’t even have a journalism department).
    Would one equation be that sentience is inversely proportional to one’s proximity to being a media owner?

  2. Another factor is that we live in a world where one’s creed doesn’t have to connect with what they do.
    Just last week, the local TV (Actual Slogan for the news: “Because accuracy matters”), which has the station owner in commercials giving her email to correct any mistakes, ran a segment on Swine Flu concentrating on whether you can get it from eating pork. In a segment they call “Fact Finder” “where we go the extra mile” , they called a vet and then reported, mistakenly, that pork should be heated to 106 degrees.
    I immediately called the station, leaving them 15 minutes in that newscast to correct their mistake. They didn’t issue a correction in that (5 PM )newscast – but they did end with a cute segment on puppies that had been genetically altered to glow in the dark.
    They avoided the issue in the 6 PM newscast. Then in the 11 PM they gave the correct information but no mention of retraction or having made an error.
    I emailed the station head who emailed back that they changed the 106 to 160 on their web page and the 11 PM newscast.
    But after giving bad info on a public health topic (not to mention as a test of their emergency reporting), shouldn’t they have given at least a token “we were wrong”.

  3. LOL, virgotex. MapleStreet, I’m lucky to have one of the best local news stations in the nation, and they still drive me crazeeeeee. I rue the day that somebody decided that cute and TV news had anything to do with each other.

  4. It’s the VISUALS … except when it’s not.
    Cute = young (and often female).
    Young = cheap labor.
    Young and female = lower wages and low cost for benefit use (if any benefits are offered. Kids often take a job for the sake of having a job, and benefits be hanged). I shouldn’t have to remind you that women make, on average, 78 cents on the dollar of men’s wages. Also, although I know I’ll get ripped on this, women don’t accrue seniority at jobs the way men do: women often do quit a job, or cut back on hours, when they marry and/or have children. That’s not something I’m advocating, by the way; I think there need to be more men who take time off for their kids (especially, maybe, their very little kids).
    Also, of course, there’s the whole “never too rich, never too thin, never too blonde” underlayment to the culture in this country.

Comments are closed.