Berl Falbaum
In case you didn’t notice, certain members of the mainstream media are frothing at the mouth over the fact that Democratic Presidential Nominee Kamala Harris has not held a press conference.
They are apoplectic. How dare she? The nerve.
Let’s calm things down and examine the issue with a little less emotion.
Generally, there are two arguments made for her to do so:
• She needs to engage in a substantive discussion with the media and outline her policies in depth.
• The media are representatives of the public and she must address them to carry the message to their constituents.
Let’s take them one at a time.
A press conference is hardly a venue for a “substantive” examination of public policies. It is a show with each side trying to outdo the other. I have been a participant as a reporter at countless press conferences over the years and have seen its superficiality first hand.
Reporters work to best each other while displaying their “intelligence,” and the TV news people work hard at assuring their question is used on the nightly newscast.
The questions are a hodge podge with one reporter asking about Ukraine and the next newsperson wanting to know why Harris let her lawn grow to unsightly lengths.
Consider a recent Trump press conference when a reporter asked him if he thought God saved him from being assassinated. Trump, being a pious man, said that’s exactly what he believed.
Tell me that is not in the public interest.
While they won’t admit it, the ultimate objective is to create a “gotcha” moment that plays well on the nightly news and the front pages of newspapers.
Even Margaret Sullivan, who is a nationally recognized media analyst and “expert,” has joined the press conference chorus, but acknowledged in a recent column:
“I don’t have a lot of confidence that the broken White House press corps would skillfully elicit the answers [to germane questions] if given the chance.”
She adds: “There will be some nonsensical controversies and unnecessary intrigue…I’m sure some unfavorable headlines will result.”
So, Ms. Sullivan, why should Harris expose herself to that and endanger her campaign? Put the presidency aside, would you hold a press conference threatening your job given the process you describe?
Which brings us to the second point, the self-serving credo that the media represent the public. Sullivan also touts that argument.
I remember taking part in a panel of journalists where the editor of a major local paper exclaimed, “Our power does come from the people; we are elected just as surely as a politician is elected.”
I don’t remember voting for him and as far as I know, neither did my family members or friends.
Years ago, in his book, “The Right to Know,” William H. Marnell wrote: “We elect, maintain, support, judge or dismiss our government. We have no such power over the press.”
Subscribing to a newspaper or canceling a subscription is not analogous to casting a hallowed, constitutional protected vote. It’s sad to even have to explain that.
Let’s come right to the point: The mainstream media is composed of private organizations whose primary (and I am tempted to say, exclusive) goal is to make a profit. GM sells cars; media organizations sell news.
Now, there is nothing wrong with that. Indeed, I emphatically support it. I have been in that environment for more than six decades. I always hoped my bosses made lots of money for my own personal reasons.
But selling news is not a public mandate. Moreover, the freedom of the press protection guaranteed in the First Amendment does not belong exclusively to The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Penthouse, NBC, etc. It belongs to every American who publishes anything, including my neighbor who is editor of the subdivision’s newsletter. I never heard him say he represents the public.
Do sexually obscene magazines and other such literature, which may be constitutionally protected, represent the public?
I don’t represent the public with these columns in The Detroit Legal News. Indeed, I don’t even dare to speak for my wife.
Let’s be honest: judgments on what is news is not made in the public interest, but what attracts newspaper subscribers or viewers of TV news. In general terms, given this column’s word limitations, it needs to be controversial, adversarial, and unique.
When a media institution loses money, it will either abandon its purported public mandate and shut down, or develop a new strategy, one that is more profitable and lucrative.
Comparing the sale of news whether in print or electronically to a public mandate is not only misdirected but self-aggrandizement.
Ultimately, Harris will hold a press conference; she will be forced into it. If she doesn’t, the daily, endless media drumbeat will ultimately cost her politically and beat her down. The media’s unrelenting onslaught on Biden’s purported mental acuity deterioration was one reason — if not the major one — he had to step down.
All that said, I am pleased that the media, as a business, is devoted to informing the public. I passionately support that goal.
But I wish they would be more honest about their role. The public indeed, would be better served if the roles of newsmakers and reporters of news were more clearly defined and understood.
They are apoplectic. How dare she? The nerve.
Let’s calm things down and examine the issue with a little less emotion.
Generally, there are two arguments made for her to do so:
• She needs to engage in a substantive discussion with the media and outline her policies in depth.
• The media are representatives of the public and she must address them to carry the message to their constituents.
Let’s take them one at a time.
A press conference is hardly a venue for a “substantive” examination of public policies. It is a show with each side trying to outdo the other. I have been a participant as a reporter at countless press conferences over the years and have seen its superficiality first hand.
Reporters work to best each other while displaying their “intelligence,” and the TV news people work hard at assuring their question is used on the nightly newscast.
The questions are a hodge podge with one reporter asking about Ukraine and the next newsperson wanting to know why Harris let her lawn grow to unsightly lengths.
Consider a recent Trump press conference when a reporter asked him if he thought God saved him from being assassinated. Trump, being a pious man, said that’s exactly what he believed.
Tell me that is not in the public interest.
While they won’t admit it, the ultimate objective is to create a “gotcha” moment that plays well on the nightly news and the front pages of newspapers.
Even Margaret Sullivan, who is a nationally recognized media analyst and “expert,” has joined the press conference chorus, but acknowledged in a recent column:
“I don’t have a lot of confidence that the broken White House press corps would skillfully elicit the answers [to germane questions] if given the chance.”
She adds: “There will be some nonsensical controversies and unnecessary intrigue…I’m sure some unfavorable headlines will result.”
So, Ms. Sullivan, why should Harris expose herself to that and endanger her campaign? Put the presidency aside, would you hold a press conference threatening your job given the process you describe?
Which brings us to the second point, the self-serving credo that the media represent the public. Sullivan also touts that argument.
I remember taking part in a panel of journalists where the editor of a major local paper exclaimed, “Our power does come from the people; we are elected just as surely as a politician is elected.”
I don’t remember voting for him and as far as I know, neither did my family members or friends.
Years ago, in his book, “The Right to Know,” William H. Marnell wrote: “We elect, maintain, support, judge or dismiss our government. We have no such power over the press.”
Subscribing to a newspaper or canceling a subscription is not analogous to casting a hallowed, constitutional protected vote. It’s sad to even have to explain that.
Let’s come right to the point: The mainstream media is composed of private organizations whose primary (and I am tempted to say, exclusive) goal is to make a profit. GM sells cars; media organizations sell news.
Now, there is nothing wrong with that. Indeed, I emphatically support it. I have been in that environment for more than six decades. I always hoped my bosses made lots of money for my own personal reasons.
But selling news is not a public mandate. Moreover, the freedom of the press protection guaranteed in the First Amendment does not belong exclusively to The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Penthouse, NBC, etc. It belongs to every American who publishes anything, including my neighbor who is editor of the subdivision’s newsletter. I never heard him say he represents the public.
Do sexually obscene magazines and other such literature, which may be constitutionally protected, represent the public?
I don’t represent the public with these columns in The Detroit Legal News. Indeed, I don’t even dare to speak for my wife.
Let’s be honest: judgments on what is news is not made in the public interest, but what attracts newspaper subscribers or viewers of TV news. In general terms, given this column’s word limitations, it needs to be controversial, adversarial, and unique.
When a media institution loses money, it will either abandon its purported public mandate and shut down, or develop a new strategy, one that is more profitable and lucrative.
Comparing the sale of news whether in print or electronically to a public mandate is not only misdirected but self-aggrandizement.
Ultimately, Harris will hold a press conference; she will be forced into it. If she doesn’t, the daily, endless media drumbeat will ultimately cost her politically and beat her down. The media’s unrelenting onslaught on Biden’s purported mental acuity deterioration was one reason — if not the major one — he had to step down.
All that said, I am pleased that the media, as a business, is devoted to informing the public. I passionately support that goal.
But I wish they would be more honest about their role. The public indeed, would be better served if the roles of newsmakers and reporters of news were more clearly defined and understood.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
http://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
