Ezra Klein: Why No Wide-Angle?

March 25, 2005

Why No Wide-Angle?

James Wolcott wants a wide-angle shot of the protesters outside Schiavo's hospice. I don't blame him. But though the cameramen seem unwilling to comply, NPR's nameless voice-on-the-scene did better as I drove to lunch this morning. The Christian Right, he said, had sent out an alert to its faithful, imploring them to come stand vigil and warning the media that the grounds would soon be flooded with hundreds, even thousands of jobless white folks hellbent on inserting themselves into a private matter. So how many showed up?

A few dozen.

March 25, 2005 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/19450/2129267

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why No Wide-Angle?:

Comments

I saw a semi-wide angle shot on the NBC news tonight. Complete with Jeb! sign in the background. Not a very big crowd though.

Posted by: bunny | Mar 25, 2005 9:38:45 PM

Not only is it a small crowd, but it's a well-behaved one as well :

http://www.thetalentshow.org/archives/001710.html

Posted by: greg | Mar 25, 2005 9:46:40 PM

The Matrix is Loading...
I was shocked and awed by what our government did last weekend, but I couldn’t understand why. And then it came to me: the Matrix. Of course, the take over is not by some computer program; it’s the final solution of the vast right wing religious conspiracy. That’s how they plan to spread God’s work – in the Matrix. For more go here.

Posted by: scout29c | Mar 25, 2005 10:30:27 PM

The sad a depressing fact of all of this is that the some folks, somewhere, somehow, decide that this is newsworthy and cover it as such. A good indication that it isn't news, (interesting, maybe, but sure as fuck not news) is the fact that so many angles have to be manipulated and framed so that it makes sense in light of the overall story being handed down from someone somewhere who decided this was what needed to be reported.

I don't know whether to be more afraid of the idea that a bunch of minions are trying to make the "story of the day" make sense, or the idea that, having decided on an agenda, the news channels then takes their already skewed agenda and create stories that fit. Either one sucks.

Suffice it to say, news is news, and while there will always be editorial decisions, the essential facts, whether zoomed in or wide-angle, should be the same, or at least roughly the same. In law, we agree what to disagree about, that is, for tactical, strategic, or other reaosns the adversaries accept certain things as being facts. Then we argue the hell out of the other facts and how the law should treat those facts. Legal, financial, and other considerations drive the adversaries to agree on at least a framework of what the hell we are arguing about and what the dispute hinges upon.

It appears no such motivations are driving the major news channels, and that is a shame. One side of this Schiavo debate is about consent, the proper rule of law, division of powers, the rights of family members, and what it means to be brain dead or brain alive. The other is about whether Mr. Schiavo is a murderer, judicial over-reach, whether Ms. Schiavo is in fact in a PVS, etc. It's like I'm trying to argue that torque is more important than horsepower, and you're trying to argue that your car kicks ass because it's painted red. The news media needs to do a better job of defining what the hell the issues are (in terms of what it is addressing, that is, no what they ARE) and then offering up debate. As it is, we get a mish-mash of talking points, footage that hews to these talking points, and no one is the wiser in terms of what is at stake, what people are saying, and how the arguments are supported.

In short, the news has drifted far too far into selling us something instead of telling us something, or informing us about something. And that stinks and it is dangerous. And, most importantly, it takes a breathtaking amount of denial for the press to engage is such bullshit as changing camera angles in order to prop up the well-refuted fact that most folks simply think this case is tragic and has reached its conclusion.

I'll write more later (on my own site, which is currently a skeleton) about why I am on the fence about the question of whether openly partisan news sources as opposed to an "objective" media is a good or bad idea. Suffice it to say that partisan media being treated as objective is heinous in a whole lot of ways.

That was too long, sorry.

Posted by: abjectfunk | Mar 26, 2005 1:14:44 AM

Wow, there are so many grammatical mistakes in my earlier post that I'll just say I know that they are there. And I'll keep this short so I don't make more. I kind of went off.

Posted by: abjectfunk | Mar 26, 2005 1:24:59 AM

"Jobless white folks" - racial stereotyping there Ezra?

It's a good job you didn't say "jobless black folks" eh!

Still they'll be a chance to say that when a minority murderer reaches his end.

Posted by: Boethius | Mar 26, 2005 2:07:29 PM

Let me just say I'm of course not accusing Ezra of any sort of prejudice.

I just find it interesting though how often Dems in general often see a racial angle to any issue.

Recently Ezra posted on I think it was the Dem candidates for LA Mayor and a key fact for each was which racial demographic each appealed to.

Sure Republicans are also not one monolithic group but they tend to split on political/ideological grounds - religious conservatives, libertarians, states-rights conservatives, military hawks, fiscal conservatives, low taxers, big business supporters etc.

Posted by: Boethius | Mar 26, 2005 2:59:37 PM

abjectfunk

That was a really interesting post.

You've made a good condemnation of the "style over substance" MSM and show the importance of bloggers.

I also know exactly what you mean when you say that you're own site is still a skeleton ;-)

Posted by: Boethius | Mar 26, 2005 3:03:56 PM

Ezra

I haven't been to your site for about a week but I haven't been avoiding you I've just been really busy at work and been doing other things at home such as going to the theatre (wow a conservative who likes cultural things!) and bowling. I had a look at your archives and it seems I've missed some interesting discussions.

I've also notice that Jesse has been banning trolls at Pandagon. While I can sympathise with that as the site was getting a bit "aggressive" I have to say that IMO the trolls were only half responsible (they received as much as they gave) and that some really sad people were actually impersonating trolls to make them look even worse (impersonating is the number one blogging crime IMO). I just hope that none of that sort of thing will happen here.

"If you want to be smart surround yourself with smart people, if you're already smart surround yourself with people who disagree with you."

Posted by: Boethius | Mar 26, 2005 3:14:43 PM

sh.SEXMOVIES sh.SEXMOVIES