Actor Harry Shearer Hits 'Vaguely Liberal' Journos for Love of 'Sob Stories'
Actor and filmmaker Harry Shearer, best known for his voice work in 'The Simpsons', blasted the news media in a speech to the National Press Club on Monday.
Specifically, he singled out the media's "myth-making" tendency - its constant desire to fit current events into mostly pre-formed narratives. "What I’m calling a ‘template,’ is based on facts. Some facts. A partial collection. The first dusting," Shearer claimed. "It then becomes adopted as ‘the narrative.' The mental doors lock shut, and no further facts are allowed in."
The Daily Caller's Chris Moody reported Tuesday:
He made the case, using coverage of Hurricane Katrina, the Iraq War and Wikileaks as examples, that once a “template” is set, news practitioners have a hard time diverting from it.
On Katrina, he recalled the time NBC News anchor Brian Williams told him that viewers prefer personal feature stories over detailed accounts of why the levies broke during the storm.
“A bias toward sob stories is as old as William Randolph Hearst’s first hard on for an actress,” Shearer cracked.
He said that the tendency for national news media outlets to “parachute” into an area they know little about for a story, combined with a dash of hubris, makes it difficult for them to rethink whether they even had it right in the first place.
“You can’t stay on a story very long, and when you come back, as everybody did to New Orleans for the fifth anniversary last fall, there’s now corporate institutional ego involved in defending the template against the assault of new information. After all, the networks, cable and broadcast bragged big time about the ballsiness of their Katrina coverage,” he said. “Exactly how do you go about retracting a boast?”
Veteran journalist W. Joseph Campbell has written at length about media myth-making, including in post-Katrina New Orleans. He discussed much of the media's self-aggrandizing attitude towards its own coverage of Katrina and the aftermath in an interview with NewsBusters.
For his part, Shearer stopped short of proclaiming a widespread liberal bias in the news media, Moody reported:
On questions of media bias, he said the real slant is not just a liberal vs. conservative issue, but one that bends toward laziness.
“Most journalists are vaguely liberal; most media owners are not so vaguely conservative,” he said. “The far more pervasive biases, I suggest, those of logistics of parachuting in and asking cab drivers, ‘what’s the mood here?’”
Of course laziness often lends itself to media liberalism, since lazy reporters who (by Shearer's telling) lean left are more likely to incorporate shallow but easily presentable narratives - such as race-centric opposition to Barack Obama or the perpetual "corporation bad, union good" line - into their reporting.
- Lachlan Markay's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Talk about a ' Sob Story '.
Submitted by Miss_Me_Yet on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 7:15pm.
Talk about a ' Sob Story '. As far as I'm concerned Shearer is just as lazy and disingenuous, with his journalists left, media owners right as those he's attempting to disparage, sort of. He's so lazy it's hard to figure out what the hell he's really trying to say.
Liberals ... we can't live with them, they couldn't survive without us ...
Considering how liberal
Submitted by Left Coast Dan on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 7:19pm.
Considering how liberal Harry's politics are, this is interesting - insightful, and blasting the lamestream media.He seems to want to kick the lamestream in the nuts
Submitted by Paarl on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 7:23pm.
but is afraid of losing friends and relationships in his old leftist world....I have never liked Shearer but he does think at times...give him time.... Paarl of RhodesiaShearer is mostly correct but
Submitted by metaphorsbwithu on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 8:12pm.
Shearer is mostly correct but doesn't go far enough.
It is indeed laziness to continue in following/advancing a template but it is not without purpose.
Many a story would lose its premise if a fact or two were revealed but their is often a conscious effort to do so which proves the story template is agenda driven.
For example, I remembering frantically pointing out to a liberal friend when the infamous "Jena Six" story broke that the reporters were not telling what had really happened and were giving viewers the impression that the beating of the victim followed an incident at the school involving black students sitting under a "white only" tree.
In fact, the incident occurred 3 months prior and the student beaten had not been involved in the incident.
Another example was when Keith Ellison was sworn in to Congress with his hand on "Thomas Jefferson's Koran".
The template was to imply that Jefferson had respect for the Muslim Holy Book and Islam when the truth was far different and the fact was that Jefferson studied the Koran to gain insight into the Barbury Pirates who were wreaking havoc against merchant ships across North Africa.
These tricks are far too common to explain as laziness, and if Shearer makes the effort to do a little research I'm sure he'll come to the same conclusion.
On Katrina -
Submitted by Ashrak on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 7:47pm.
The template was that Bush should have sent in the military. It was Bush's fault. But wait, Blanco never asked the President for help, so if Bush had sent in the military without her asking him to, he would have been committing an impeachable offense.
But then, that is exactly what Blanco and the media were baiting!
Then come 2007, quietly, in a defense bill, it was slipped through. One would think that media would have hammered bush for Executive power grabbing. They did so on other things, right? Ohhh, we couldn't do that, cuz that wouldn't have fit the template!
Media couldn't explain that the rules were changed to allow a President to, by Executive order, bypass a Governor and take the military into a state, heck, go so far as to take control of the state's national guard away from the governor. Doing so would have destroyed the entire "Bush's fault" theme and Kanye's "Bush hates black people" garbage.
Breitbart was right. Mainstream media just sucks.
Not Only Did Blanco Not Ask, She Refused Bush's Help
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 10:13pm.
Bush asked Blanco to react 24 hours before Katrina hit and she refused.
Bush asked Blanco at least twice to allow Federal resources to enter Louisiana to help after Katrina hit and Blanco refused.
Not...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 10:18pm.
necessarily.
Jer
So the feds as supposed to
Submitted by stratman on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 1:26pm.
So the feds as supposed to run roughshod over a governor who refuses help, stating they will take care of it themselves?strat..
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 1:33pm.
Normally, no. But if that governor is sitting on her can or running around in circles while a major American city in her state is sinking under seawater and fighting for its life, then, yes, she needs to be bulldozed out of the way.
Jer
Thank you Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 1:40pm.
Blanco was promptly bulldozed out of the way by the proper authority,,, La voters.
cajun
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 1:54pm.
Well said, "proper authority,,,La voters."Jer
Submitted by stratman on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 2:45pm.
If Mississippi were sinking under seawater and fighting for its life despite a governor not sitting on his can nor running around in circles, which was the case, would you still demand the Feds run roughshod over the governor if he refused Federal assistance (which he did not)?
Bingo strat*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 2:57pm.
All politics is local. We saw that incompetence with Blanco and Nagin and no matter how much Geraldo and Shepperd Smith tried to blame Bush, we were more aware of the truth.
With the early returns of the latest census, it is already showing over 250,000 people have left NO and not returned. Now the democrats in La are trying to continue to allow the "refugees" to still have the right to vote even after 5 yrs. The reason? That is Landrieu's district and the new mayor of NO is Mitch Landrieu, her brother. Welcome to Louisiana.
Good evening cajun
Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 3:18pm.
I did not evacuate for Katrina and witnessed the total incompetence and criminal neglect of Blankhead, mayor Nointelligence and Aaron Bastard first hand. President Bush tried to help from the very first but they all put roadblocks in his way.Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
agree coco*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 3:25pm.
People outside of La will never truely understand what happened here because it doesn't fit the liberal agenda. Corruption and race based wasteful spending was the basis of all our troubles in NO. Even before Katrina ,Bush tried to handcuff the Levee Board to no avail. Something Mike Foster tried to do during his term. Over $400 million spent by Nagin and nothing of substance done for NO and NO is now broke. Where did the money go? Look at the power brokers in and around NO for the last 50 years, all democrats.
Another reason the government wants to control the net
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 3:42pm.
Sorry to barge in, but the internet can truly be a great thing. It gives me, from the mid-Atlantic region, the opportunity to hear what happened from people who were there. The so called press certainly didn't do that, neither people like Kanye West who spoke out of ignorance. No wonder the government wants to have the power to shut down the internet.strat...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 3:19pm.
Blanco didn't refuse all federal assistance--in fact she requested it, even before Katrina hit. What she turned down was the federalization and insertion of troops and relinquishing complete authority and control to the military and the federal government. [She reportedly later claimed her refusal was a mistake.]
But to answer your specific question...it depends. If the danger is imminent, conditions are critical and the potential damage and loss of life is severe, and the state obviously lacks the assets or is logistically or otherwise unable to adequately handle the emergency, then my answer would be 'yes'--although I would first try very hard to persuade the governor to be a tad more agreeable before cranking up the bulldozer.
Jer
Who knew Mississippi had
Submitted by stratman on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 3:52pm.
Who knew Mississippi had enough resources in the immediate aftermath? In your scenario, the Feds could have gone in no matter what the governor said or was happening on the ground. How much time should pass before the Feds override the governor and come in?
Your answer is Monday morning quarterbacking. And it is dangerous. There is no bottom to your position since whomever is in charge in the White House can then make the sole determination on what the Federal Government may do regardless of Law or a State's position.
As you graciously restated my initial point, Bush offered, Blanco refused. It was her right as governor to refuse. It was Bush's duty to follow law and its precedence. It was ideology that doomed Blanco and New Orleans. Your problem should be with Blanco's negligence, at least partly due to failed Liberal ideology, but you'll blame Bush nonetheless because that same ideology is more important to you than the law.
But it is good to know where you will disregard over 220 years of precedence since the Constitution was ratified, precedence of more than 130 years since Posse Comitatus, and States' rights.
I understand your emotional argument. When did you forget the law?
strat...When did YOU forget that I have been stating
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 4:47pm.
for nearly four years now that Bush was unfairly blamed over Katrina--or at least the level of blame was grossly disproportionate to his actual degree of responsibility. I haven't made an emotional argument. I merely linked an interesting counterpoint to Ashrak's assertions. [You know, the ones contained in the post where he also claimed Bush was deliberately being baited by the media into sending troops into New Orleans so he could be impeached for violating the Constitution. Wow...speaking of an emotional argument, and a fantastically absurd one to boot--yet apparently one with which you had no disagreement.]
I'll add a comment about your Mississippi hypothetical later, but I'm surprised and disappointed with your post, strat. It completely mischaracterizes my views.
Jer
In my fleshed-out scenario,
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 5:33am.
In my fleshed-out scenario, the state has already suffered a major natural disaster overwhelming the ability and assets of the local and state authorities to cope with the widespread destruction, damage to property, dislocation of tens of thousands of citizens, the breakdown of law and order, injuries to and deaths of hundreds, perhaps thousands of inhabitants--while conditions are steadily and rapidly deteriorating, clearly requiring a far more aggressive and comprehensive response than what has to that point been managed. Nevertheless, the governor continues to arrogantly and stubbornly and inexplicably refuse all federal assistance despite repeated offers--and pleas--from the White House.
So, I'll turn the question back on you: How much time should pass before the Feds override the governor and come in?
Your answer is Monday morning quarterbacking. And it is dangerous. There is no bottom to your position since whomever is in charge in the White House can then make the sole determination on what the Federal Government may do regardless of Law or a State's position.
For heaven's sake, the President can order far more ominous, consequential and "dangerous" military actions in the international sphere under his War Powers authority than what would be involved in a federal response to a domestic emergency aggravated by the inaction of a recalcitrant governor. And yet you seem to say that the governor should be able to make the sole determination of whether the Feds can ever step in--regardless of the devastation which results from the persistent rejection of federal help. I'm not advocating the President ignore the law. I'm stating there is a point at which he should go ahead and exercise the discretionary power which he already possesses in domestic crises, albeit authority rarely used, where exigent circumstances demand it.
As you graciously restated my initial point, Bush offered, Blanco refused. It was her right as governor to refuse. It was Bush's duty to follow law and its precedence. It was ideology that doomed Blanco and New Orleans. Your problem should be with Blanco's negligence, at least partly due to failed Liberal ideology, but you'll blame Bush nonetheless because that same ideology is more important to you than the law.
But it is good to know where you will disregard over 220 years of precedence since the Constitution was ratified, precedence of more than 130 years since Posse Comitatus, and States' rights.
I understand your emotional argument. When did you forget the law?
I'm as baffled by those comments now as I was a couple of days ago. I do have a problem with Blanco's negligence--which I thought was readily inferable from my "running around in circles" and "sitting on her can" comments in a much earlier post--as well as Nagin's. The problems I have with Bush's handling are that he should have curtailed his vacation earlier, headed back to DC and at least given the appearance of taking a more active role in crisis management as well as lighting a fire under the butt of the political hack "heck of a job Brownie" whose FEMA response was blunder-ridden. But, I'll say again: Bush was hammered far more than he deserved to be over Katrina.
Jer
While I thank you for
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 9:58pm.
While I thank you for returning to reply, you didn't directly address my Mississippi question despite explicitly promising to do so.
Your responses, in a nutshell, are akin to saying no established laws need be followed - but you know pornography when you see it. This by construct is emotive, as was your ironical misdirection in the bracketed response of an earlier post. One man's pornography is another man's Pulitzer Prize and the process empowers or marginalizes each opinion as determinant with consequence based on position of power. Isn't this a reason for our system of jurisprudence - a defined process of rights, privileges, and consequences which guide conduct regardless of relational power structures - and why obscenity laws disintegrate when SCOTUS defines nothing?
You should not be baffled as I have already discussed this with you a couple weeks ago. I can get emotive responses from anybody. You've delivered more in the past because of your specialized legal education and experience, but now, not so much, even when explicitly asked.
I don't feel like I'm getting your A-game anymore, Jer.
strat...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 11:16pm.
I stated that I would "add a comment" to your Mississippi question. I did so. You may not agree with the comment. You may consider it deflective, inadequate, unpersuasive, emotive and/or absurd. But please don't accuse me of breaking an explicit promise when I did nothing of the sort.
Now, so that we understand one another, it would be helpful to clearly identify the specific question you had in mind. Was it this one:
If Mississippi were sinking under seawater and fighting for its life despite a governor not sitting on his can nor running around in circles, which was the case, would you still demand the Feds run roughshod over the governor if he refused Federal assistance (which he did not)?
Or was it one or both of the following:
Who knew Mississippi had enough resources in the immediate aftermath? In your scenario, the Feds could have gone in no matter what the governor said or was happening on the ground. How much time should pass before the Feds override the governor and come in?
Or if you prefer, feel free to reframe your question so that the core issue you wish me to address is unambiguously presented.and unsusceptible to variant interpretations.
Thanks,
Jer
Just to throw this in*
Submitted by cajun2 on Fri, 03/18/2011 - 11:16pm.
Just a reminder, La, like Mississippi learned long ago from countless hurricanes, taking money from the Feds has strings attached. Even when in dire need, La has learned a costly lesson. The Feds have forced changes in rules, regulations, regarding insurance, emergencies, reimbursements to shelters, etc. The Feds can now overide state authority in many areas.
Dangerous business dealing with the Feds.
Bless your heart,
Submitted by stratman on Sat, 03/19/2011 - 3:33am.
Bless your heart, Jer.
Chronologically:
Maybe where you come from everyone expects you to be oblique, but I don't. Without a doubt, that second boldfaced answer of yours is the biggest chicken scratch answer you've written me.
If Mississippi were sinking under seawater and fighting for its life despite a governor not sitting on his can nor running around in circles, which was the case, would you still demand the Feds run roughshod over the governor if he refused Federal assistance (which he did not)?
Or was it one or both of the following:
Who knew Mississippi had enough resources in the immediate aftermath? In your scenario, the Feds could have gone in no matter what the governor said or was happening on the ground. How much time should pass before the Feds override the governor and come in?
Or if you prefer, feel free to reframe your question so that the core issue you wish me to address is unambiguously presented.and unsusceptible to variant interpretations."
Pardon me for thinking you knew the difference between separate posts and being able to handle more than one question at a time. Maybe the first question stumped you because it posited a hypothetical you were unprepared to answer or didn't like the direction it took. Maybe the second post's questions were too troublesome because they expanded the enquiry based on your reply.
The absurdity of all this reminds me of an SNL gag with Garret Morris translating the news for the hard of hearing. In your scenario, the president may capriciously determine when and if he will ignore state's rights. You give a particular scenario in which it would be acceptable for you while disregarding the inherent danger of potential federal hegemony in less serious scenarios. Who knew Mississippi could handle their portion of the disaster in the immediate aftermath of the storm? In your scenario, the feds could override the governor's authority in the immediate aftermath of the storm no matter what is happening on the ground or requested by the governor. Federal martial law on the cheap.
I did, however, enjoy your evolution from diplomatic gentle hand holding and warm fuzzy persuasion - what Bush essentially did - to throwing the negligent governor down a well and sending the forces in full steam ahead - what most wanted regardless of precedent and law.
At the end of the day, I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
Sincerely,
Stratman
Good evening Jer
Submitted by cocodrie on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 4:20pm.
at first Blanko refused to call up our national guard, refused to allow Bush to send help of any kind, refused to allow FEMA into the area. There was total inaction on her part during the first few days. I believe she was waiting for the wind to reverse itself and put things back in order just like in the cartoons. We are a republic with states rights, or at least we used to be.Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
You're welcome, cajun...but
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 2:14pm.
I think technically speaking she chose to avoid a bulldozing at the polls by not running for re-election.
Jer
True Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 2:25pm.
The strangest thing. I had another paragraph to my post that didnt show up. Darn this new NB.
My other comments Jer had to do with the fact that her disapproval rating was so high she knew not to even run again. None of the Bush bashing nor Bush/Blanco dust up was the cause.
If you will allow me, before and immediately after Katrina, Blanco had numerous press conferences with Mary Landrieu. La citizens did not miss that Landrieu would nudge Blanco, whisper in her ear then Blanco would throw in digs at Bush. The people of La were furious with her. She and Landrieu were playing politics while NO was doomed. She lost all trust in her leadership since she was obviously a political puppet. As a result, she was able to accomplish very little in the remainder of her term and knew not to bother to run again. Lack of leadership, politics before citizens's well being, failed administration policies,, lack of trust and confidence in our leaders....Sound familiar Jer?
cajun...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 2:57pm.
Lack of leadership, politics before citizens's well being, failed administration policies,, lack of trust and confidence in our leaders....Sound familiar Jer?
Well, yes....but hasn't Bush been beaten up on enough? Let's give the poor guy a break. ;-)
Jer
careful Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 3:03pm.
That comment is going into my bookmarks for future reference....;-)
Good job, Caj~comment locked in~
Submitted by GG_NB on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 3:07pm.
Bwahahahahaha."If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Well GG*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 3:16pm.
...throw out the bait, wait patiently, critter bites, bring it home...LOL
I love to fish.
Hmmm...
Submitted by GG_NB on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 3:22pm.
Perhaps my new tagline?
"...but hasn't Bush been beaten up on enough? Let's give the poor guy a break." -- Jer
JK, Jer! I'll stick with:
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
"...throw out the bait, wait
Submitted by stratman on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 4:06pm.
Even though that was about our quasi-official NB contrarian Jer, it was funny!
Ladies...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 3:24pm.
Y'all did notice that little ;-) thingy, didn't you?
Jer
Jer~
Submitted by GG_NB on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 3:31pm.
Yeah, that was so cute of you to imitate how Bush used to wink a lot."If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
It's interesting he picked Katrina
Submitted by pbthinker on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 8:21pm.
Katrina, if I were to vote, would have been the low point in media converage of an event. After reading Popular Mechanics magazine talk about the 10 myths of Katrina and then realizing the press as responsible for perpetrating all of them, it doesn't take you long to figure out they did a terrible job of reporting. One of the worst, Shepherd Smith of Fox News, one of the best, Major Garrett, also of Fox News. It took Major Garrett coming to New Orleans to actually get some of the truth out about what was happening. I think Smith was phoning it in and just passing on the rumor of the moment.http://www.popularmechanics.c
Submitted by amyshulk on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 9:41pm.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/natural-disasters/23... THANKSRonald Reagan
I think he might be a ditto-head.
Submitted by delmar on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 9:03pm.
He'd never admit it though.Anybody who calls most of the
Submitted by Smartypants on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 9:31pm.
Anybody who calls most of the media "vaguely liberal" is off base in my book. There is nothing vague about the leftward leaning of most members of the press. I agree, some members of the media do exhibit laziness, which contributes to the bias; however, it is absurd to state that members of the press are vaguely liberal while implying ownership is more openly conservative. Is Ted Turner conservative? Was he ever conservative? This guy gave birth to cable news; I think he has had a significant impact on it. The media leans left for three basic reasons: 1. Most members of the media are liberal, have been surrounded by liberals for most of their lives and have liberal orthodoxy flowing in their veins. They disdain conservatives and conservatism, not because they understand it, but because they have been told of its "evils" from a young age. 2. Liberalism sells WAY better than conservatism: The David and Goliath stories, the sob stories, the endless drivel about the plight of the little guy against the all powerful greedy rich SOBs. It sells! It is what Hollywood peddles on a weekly basis. Stories about how Bush's tax cuts will ruin everyone's lives are much more profitable than stories that actually dissect the tax changes and explain the related impact in detail. Those stories don't fit in a 45 second tv report and the networks aren't going to waste their time with it. 3. Laziness (this is where I agree with Shearer) - The inherent liberalism of the media (from #1 and #2 above) tend to create templates for most of the bigger stories. Once those templates are established, stories tend to write themselves. So, they establish a premise that GW Bush mislead the country on WMDs, and stories that fit that template are easy. It's the same for Katrina, Guantanamo, terrorist surveillance programs, you name it. Once Obama was elected, the templates were no good anymore. So, despite the fact that we still have people in Iraq, Guantanamo is still open, etc., we don't hear a thing about them anymore. Gas prices jump? It's a non issue now.Shemp is a Louisianan
Submitted by brutony1 on Tue, 03/15/2011 - 9:40pm.
and was following the lock-step of the moment, but he only added fuel to the fire! Thats when I lost respect for him,, and realized hes just another lib in a Fox's clothing!When will liberals WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE! -Me