Tagged: Maggie Haberman

Media quatsch all over

Right on cue from Politico’s Maggie Haberman:

A split between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was inevitable. Now that they’ve made peace, keeping it will be the challenge.

The Obama and Clinton camps tried to mend their differences Tuesday, but certain dynamics won’t be as easy to overcome in the months ahead as Clinton mulls a White House bid: Some advisers around both politicians have a hard time letting bygones be bygones. The press is determined to continue to dissect the relationship. And Obama and Clinton have genuinely different interests and instincts on some big questions facing the country.

A media driven kerfuffle that the media admits it will keep alive, if nothing else, for clicks.

Where’s the substance?

Media quatsch

David Gregory is reportedly out as host of NBC’s Meet the Press program. Mr Gregory’s problem is that he didn’t continue the shopworn, gotcha quote shtick made famous by his predecessor, Tim Russert. Also, Mr Gregory is inept at interviews.

The political pundit sphere is all a-twitter over Hillary Clinton’s criticism of President Obama’s foreign policy. The typical pseudo-conflict narrative has ensued. First, Ms Clinton was said to be “calibrating” away from Obama. Soon, such calibration was breathlessly cast as an open rift. Then unnamed sources were said to state that Ms Clinton wasn’t so vocally critical during her time as Secy of State. All of this makes for a month’s worth of click bait headlines. What is missing, however, is a critical assessment of Ms Clinton’s views on foreign policy. Were they right? Were they likely to work? Regarding Syria, why doesn’t a pundit ask a follow up question: How would Ms Clinton have attained military authorization from a dysfunctional, Tea Party riddled Congress? Could we have some substance occasionally, dear journalists?

According to Gawker, Buzzfeed deleted 4,000+ entries on its Pulitzer Prize winning website. Following so closely on the heels of the dismissal of “BuzzFeedBenny” (for “plagiarism”), it appears that questions of originality remain a problem for the list-making, content aggregator extraordinaire. When will journalism 2.0 types learn that content trumps distribution?