Photo by Logan Abassi/UN

Photo by Logan Abassi/UN

At The New Republic, Noam Schieber argues the blanket media coverage of the Haitian earthquake aftermath is just too much. It’s redundant, it’s interfering with aid operations, it’s a waste of resources. His solution: pool coverage. Just as the president is followed around by a rotating pool of reporters, maybe Haiti and other natural disasters should be too:

Just like they do for White House coverage, the major (and some not so major) news organizations could draw up an agreement to send a contingent of print, radio, and television reporters to wherever the next global disaster strikes. The participating news organizations could then use the raw material transmitted back to them to fashion their own reports. The pool correspondents could even be available to conduct on-air interviews with different television organizations, depending on their editorial needs. The arrangement would obviously be less than ideal for the outlets with the biggest budgets. But, collectively, the media would have the peace of mind of knowing it’s not exacerbating the same problems it’s trying to alleviate.

I yield to no one in my contempt for the crass, sensationalistic conventions of TV news (which, given technical demands and the quest for ratings, has by far the biggest footprint of any media). And the coverage of natural disasters employs most of those conventions, notably the faintly ridiculous notion of journalist-as-globetrotting-hero.

But do we really need less coverage of Haiti? (more…)

The political coverage at The New Republic is often brilliant. But sometimes the writers seem to get lost in the data points and other arcana generated by the daily news cycle. They overdetermine. They gin up intricate arguments that lead nowhere. It’s the curse of being very smart and marinating in really stupid campaign coverage – there’s only so much you can say, but TNR has to say more.

Take this piece by Isaac Chotiner, who writes of his experience with MSNBC: “I increasingly started watching the channel last year because of its political focus, and for the novelty of seeing outspoken liberals on television. How often does one hear a news anchor rant against the corruption of Bush’s Washington, after all?” But then he notes that MSNBC (actually, he is talking mostly about Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann) is notably pro-Obama and anti-Clinton, in addition to being anti-Bush. And that the pro-Obama slant seems to be based not on a cool analysis of policy differences or leadership potential, but crass, button-pushing emotion. And this is bad, because it’s like Fox News. Except, not really:

If an Obama presidency were to bomb in a way similar to George W. Bush’s (unlikely, sure, but I’m speaking hypothetically here), it’s difficult to imagine that MSNBC would treat Obama as reverentially as Fox still does Bush. (In fact, I could see an issue like press access leading to a break between the channel and President Obama even if he thrives in office.)

MSNBC has found a crass, semi-winning formula that is entertaining, gives liberals a voice, and is probably not as bad as Fox. Given the state of the cable news business, that sounds pretty good. He also warns that the pro-Obama spin creates a false impression of the candidate’s support. True enough, but how many people regularly watch MSNBC, and how many of them take Chris Matthews seriously?


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.