THURSDAY'S LETTERS: Broder and the Clintons, 'Mercenary Army' Not Fictional Sarcasm, Newspapers in Decline

By: E&P Staff In today's letters, a blogger has some tough words for David Broder, a reader wishes Koppel's "army of mercenaries" was fictional sarcasm, and another reader opines about why newspapers are in decline.


***

Broder Looking in Hillary's Panty Drawer?

David Broder comes right out and admits what we all suspected:

"But for all the delicacy of the treatment, the very fact that the Times had sent a reporter out to interview 50 people about the state of the Clintons' marriage and placed the story on the top of Page One was a clear signal -- if any was needed -- that the drama of the Clintons' personal life would be a hot topic if she runs for president."

Yes, it was, wasn't it? The press is putting everyone on notice that they are going to keep their noses firmly buried in Hillary Clinton's panty drawer for the next two years. As he gazes upon her "striking appearance in a lemon-yellow pantsuit" old Dave is so aroused he can't concentrate on her serious energy speech. Hillary and Bill are more potent than Viagra to these nasty old geezers in the Washington Press corps.

Oooh. What delicious, delicious fun it is for these shriveled old crones. Finally, they can write about things they really enjoy instead of all this boooring corruption, war, terrorism and political failure. Damn it's invigorating to be back in the saddle, isn't it, Dave?!

I am actually kind of impressed with Broder's candor here. He's not mincing any words. He comes right out and admits that the press is laying down the gauntlet: if Hillary runs, the Washington Press Corps is going to treat her like a whore. A frigid whore, of course, but a whore nonetheless. No games, no pretense. They are primed and cocked for a full-on Clenis porn-fest. It's clear they are desperate for it.

Broder is, of course, the man who famously said the Clintons came to town and trashed the place. And it's some fine place it is. Its social leaders have all the style of Pyongyang combined with the sophistication of Fresno. And like busybodies in all bourgeois backwaters, when the leading denizens decide that somebody's a little bit too human, they viciously tear them apart for pure sport.

Broder concludes:

"Three times in the question-and-answer session, she referred to her husband as "Bill," praising him for seeing that his library in Little Rock incorporated a lot of energy-saving features. Other than that, the elephant in the room went unmentioned."

But it got a rubdown, didn't it, Dave?

David Wyles


***

Koppel's 'Mercenary Army' Already Exists?

It is unfortunate that Ted Koppel's article suggesting an "Army of Mercenaries" isn't fictional sarcasm. Our government does and has had an army of mercenaries in training and in place since 1946. It is called the School of America's a.k.a. Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (WHINSEC). Our government continues to deny any involvement in illegal activity, but it is well-documented that these "soldiers" trained by the United States in Fort Benning, Georgia, are involved in many mercenary activities, primarily in Latin America.

Once these "soldiers" graduate from the SOA program, they are hired by their governments (some of these governments are directed by major corporations) to use terror tactics, including torture, murder, the slaughtering of innocent people, etc. to keep their workers in line.

The SOA Watch is a watchdog group located in Washington, DC. They keep track of and document the activities of WHINSEC. I wouldn't at all be surprised to find that these "graduates" are in Middle East.

I'm sure that none of this information is new to the staff at Editor & Publisher. What I would like to know, is why periodicals such as yours, do not write more articles to inform the American citizens of groups such as WHINSEC?

I am often amazed when citizens of our Country wonder why most of the world hates us. The standard response I hear is, "They're just jealous of our standard of living." No, I think it is more that our government, unbeknownst to most of its citizens, is involved in many unethical, immoral, and illegal activities, all in the name of "Free Trade."

Rose Chisholm
Lake Orion, Mich


***

Why Newspapers Are in Decline (and TV News, Too)

I've been reading your site for over a year and I see a lot of hand-wringing about the decline of newspapers and the many possible causes. What I don't see is anyone saying the obvious: maybe the product just isn't very good anymore. I no longer follow newspapers or TV news, with very few exceptions.

No, it's not because of the supposed political bias of the news coverage. Here's why I have given up (sorry, this is a long one):

-- I am tired of frivolous, "human interest", and "news you can use" stories getting major and disproportionate coverage, while real stories are neglected. This goes double for the idiotic coverage of celebrities, Hollywood, etc. I don't need you how to keep warm in the winter, either, or to warn me to drink more on hot days.

-- I am tired of no follow-up. For stories both medium and large, there is no coverage afterwards. Weeks or months after the big arrest or the fire, or whatever, was there a conviction? Was there a likely cause of the fire? It's all coverage "in the moment", and every new day ignores what was covered the day before. What this says to me is "what we covered yesterday wasn't really important, since we have forgotten about it ourselves." Bad message.

-- Use of packaged PR items as news. When our local Dunkin' Donuts chain changed their advertising strategy and got rid of the midnight-baker ad theme they had used for years, all local outlets covered this as a major, major story -- using clips, quotes, images from Dunkin' and their agency. There was no actual solid reporting, just a regurgitation of the press event. ...

-- Detailed, breathless coverage of staged events, including press conferences. Again, it's regurgitation, not reporting when journalists to "cover" a pre-planned, usually PR-centric, event. It's doesn't take a lot of work, does it? You don't even need a journalist; all you need is a tape recorder and a scribe.

-- Wall-to-wall coverage of routine events. I am not talking about California trials such as O.J., Scott Peterson, or Michael Jackson. Here in Boston, apparently there is no other news going on the day of the Boston Marathon or the Red Sox home opener. It's the same story and storylines every year, you might as well rerun last year's copy and video. The only "news" will be who the winner is. It doesn't take a serious reporter to cover these non-stories, but all the local reporters cover them as if they are full of actual news value. Most of the alleged coverage is planned and scheduled in advance. When I asked a bunch of reporters why they did this, they said these events give them a chance to catch up with all their buddies, they have no surprises, and they don't take any serious work to cover -- they are perfect for a nice day of food, drink, and talk among themselves.

-- Reporting all those studies as "news". Sorry, they are not. Nearly all studies are from groups that have a bias or a political, legal, or financial agenda, whether hidden or not. Reporting on a study is not news; again, it is regurgitation. It might be real reporting if there was some background analysis, a lot at the source or credibility of the data, or a serious look at a contrary view. And sorry, a study that shows "75% of Americans feel overworked and underpaid" is neither a study and nor news. These non-study "studies" are flawed on so many levels, it's laughable -- but they get reported as if they were real news. They are headline-grabbing press-release items that fill column inches and airtime, then evaporate by the next day, that's all. Be honest about it.

Whether the primary cause of this product diminishment is management pressure for reporters to do more in less time, or lazy reporters who'd rather cover the obvious and insubstantial rather than do serious digging and analysis (admit it, there are plenty of those, too) -- it doesn't matter to me. The end result is the same. Most "news reports" these days are not news and not reports.

And the sooner that journalists admit that their product needs to improve dramatically, the better off the profession and industry will be. Blame whoever and whatever you want, at some point, your product is so diminished in quality, value, and stature that no one will care much if it disappears. We are already fairly close to that point. It's not the web, iPods, a million cable channels, and other excuses, it's the content that news organizations and journalists are offering that is falling short. And your audience has figured this out, too.

Bill Schweber
Sharon, Mass.