Our Media: Too Dumb to Report?

I thought I'd write about our American legacy media. It tends to be a perennial, popular topic on the Right. For good reason too. The output from these institutions is seemingly a never-ending wellspring of drivel that would overflow a thousand Jim Jones Kool-Aid jugs in a couple of news cycles. Disseminating information is critical to any functional democratic system, educating citizens on important matters to foster outcomes that are less than disastrous. Perhaps sometimes this task is achieved. And there are a few trusted legacy sources out there, such as Road & Track magazine, which at one point even prudently endorsed Dan Gurney for US President. Yet, alas, Road & Track has a limited scope of news coverage, and we don't have that many Brock Yates in the general news category nowadays. But maybe I should focus this post more before going off on niche motorsport tangents that may lose readers and stray from the core topic. Now criticism of "the media" is certainly a topic with which every Ricochet member is familiar, so what's there to add? Well, I think I might have an angle that provides some fresh insight. And if it doesn't, well then I hope it's at least entertaining.

The recent do-over of the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) dinner jogged my memory of this post idea and motivated me along to write it. This particular Trump-related event did not have its perimeter penetrated by a would-be assassin—very much a good thing or maybe a bad thing depending on one's worldviews and media consumption habits. There again was a collection of many of the big names of legacy news media all together for the express purpose of Trump riffing on them, and for them to pan him. Both sides for somewhat performative and therapeutic purposes. But this isn't about the WHCA dinner and it's not about Trump (who seems to be a catalyst for the news biz). Instead, it's more about a growing element of plain ole stupidity that appears ever more frequently in our legacy media. I'll provide some specific examples to illustrate an idea proposal.

Example #1: NBC Reporter Baffled Inability to Identify an Active Gun Fight

Months ago, there was an incident in the immediate vicinity of the White House in which a gunman got into a firing exchange with security. From later reports and the obvious gunshots recorded on NBC video, it is clear that many shots were fired. The gunman may have been attempting an attack on the White House and the president before being by armed security. Though I have nothing against the relatively young female reporter named Julie Tsirkin — she's listed as the NBC News Capitol Hill Correspondent, seems pleasant enough — her reaction to an active gunfight had the appearance of a scene straight out of a Mel Brooks or Leslie Nielsen comedy. It was a lethal situation turned slapstick parody.

[Gunshot sounds ringing out in background]

NBC reporter: Huh, what's that? Is something making sounds?

[More gunsshot rapidly sounding out in background]

NBC reporter: Huh? [Turns head, swiveling awkwardly and gawking around.] What is that? huh?

Someone off camera: Sounds like gun fire

[More gunshots rapidly firing off in background]

NBC reporter: Huh? What is that? huh? [Bank confused expression and blinking]

Now, there are things that you cannot directly teach. People either pick up on something or they don't. Julie Tsirkin did not. One could wonder how well developed her self-preservation instincts are. Others might say that perhaps she's never, ever been exposed to gunfire in a live setting... and never watched action or war movies to hear the sounds. So all she required was a couple live experiences and then she might pick up on it better. To her credit, though, the NBC White House team evidently figured out that it was gunfire and later produced this report.

One could contrast this NBC reaction with a niche conservative media outlet that also had a reporter in the same area at the same time. The conservative reporter immediately ducked for cover after the first couple of shots. But one works for a legacy media company with all kinds of reach and backing, and the other belongs to an outlet that under Biden might have been throttled during social media suppression efforts.

I have to say something in this NBC reporter's favor, though. She took it in good humor, even poked fun at herself. I actually don't think she is deviant. I don't suspect that she deliberately covers things up. I don't think she uses euphemisms and other types of word games deliberately to mislead or manipulate people. I think the best explanation lies elsewhere.

Example #2: CNN Reporter Gets No Phone Call Answers from Somali Scammers as "Proof" of Debunking the Nick Shirley & Co. Fraud Claims

I am going to assume the reader is now fully familiar with the viral videos of investigative YouTuber Nick Shirley and his Minnesota partner who created content to draw attention to probable systemic large-scale fraud throughout the Minneapolis metro area. In a way this was low-hanging fruit for Nick Shirley. Much of the investigative legwork had already been completed by his partner. There were also plenty of other local news and reports (including some prosecutions) that directly indicated scamming and fraud in Minnesota social welfare and other support programs. But Shirley, for some combination of reasons, had an outsized impact in getting public attention to the issue. He actually ended up having a real-world impact and likely brought down the rather despicable Gov Tim Walz. This created a case of the need to not only kill the message, but also to do a character-killing of the messenger himself. Enter CNN news and Whitney Wild.

Nick Shirley is still a young man and, despite his incredible successes, is still a bit green and in need of additional polish and development. CNN dispatched a younger female reporter named Whitney Wild to do a takedown of Shirley in front of the now-infamous "Quality Learing Center." (The site was later raided by Federal Authorities—the owners fled, apparently.) CNN's reporter introduces him as a "MAGA YouTuber," presumably to prejudice its audience to any information he presents. The problem that CNN seemed to identify was that Shirley was giving a lot more light and attention to an already known systemic corruption issue. But the reaction to this was interesting. In times past, a newspaper and media outlet might have tried to "outscoop" Shirley. Basically, see that he is getting traction and so rip his material, try to get something more, and then post and promote your own version of the hot story. Instead, CNN took the direction to attempt to bury and discredit the startup reporter. The result was one of the most comical investigative reports I've ever seen! The kicker is that this blond CNN reporter filmed herself doing it without any self-awareness of what was actually going on and how it might look to a third-party observer.

Channelling her inner Leslie Nielsen in Airplane, the CNN reporter confronts her mark: "Surely you can't be serious?", directly in front of the misspelled "Learing" sign in CNN's camera angle! Yes, I am serious. And Shirley responds by pointing to the contact telephone number printed in giant figures on the building. He also defends himself with follow-up comments and encourages her to look into it herself and go to the addresses and call the numbers. Huh? What's that? Swivel confused face. You mean a large media outlet might have to be informed on basic investigative work? What's great is that the CNN report takes up part of Shirley's request, not the in-person investigative part, but the calling the numbers part. This leads us to the punchline...

In her hostile questioning, she comes across as saying that because authorities have investigated some places and brought some charges, other places mentioned are therefore innocent. Evidence of fraud in the area and not having been charged yet is somehow proof of innocence? I'm curious about Whitney Wild's logic applied by this story. So in the attached video, the young CNN reporter says they are looking into Shirley's claims (which couldn't possibly be true). Her methodology is something to behold.

So now claimed reporter Wild sits down with a list of phone numbers that I assume she received from Nick Shirley. She has her CNN film crew record her calling number by number to debunk the specious, "racist MAGA" claims of the YouTube pest. Number after number, she gets no answer. There are many cuts to the segment, and the conversations were almost entirely edited out. Wild informs us that only one number was active and responded to the call. She then asked a super intelligent first question: "Like are you a legit business or something?" and then asks leading follow-ups whether or not he has been following Shirley videos and the controversy around them. The unheard voice on the other end presumably assures Wild that it is a legit business. CNN's report then goes on to more or less imply she's fatally punctured Nick Shirley's bogus claims.

Stunning work from CNN's Whitney Wild. Apparently it never occurred to her that a voice on the other end of the phone could have lied. Typically you don't just call up scammers and fraudsters and ask: "Are you a scammer and fraudster?" expecting the criminal to break down and admit everything. The fact that every other number was unreachable (just like Shirley claimed) counted as evidence that no fraud occurred because she couldn't get an answer of "Yes! Yes! We are shameless fraudsters! Guilty," says much about Wild's understanding of the criminal mind. The closing of the report has an absurd implication that the Trump administration investigating Minnesota fraud can be dismissed because local Republican politicians have been "sounding the alarm" on fraud for years in vain. Wild then seems to give an endorsement of the notorious "Quality Learing Center" when the scammer running the place creates a stunt for the cameras by bringing in kids for a single visit to the facility. Wild pounces on this to attack Shirley's claims that the facility is dubious. She seems to swallow the ruse whole. The reporter is then joined by serious anchor-man Jim Sciutto to ask her the obvious question: So there was actually fraud going on with the convictions? Wild seems to grudgingly admit this but never lets up on her posture of doubting the credibility of the fraud allegations. I'll highlight that she is listed as CNN's "Law Enforcement Correspondent." Let that sink in.

Maybe Inspector Clouseau is still available for contract work.

I would really like to see a third-party observer hold Whitney Wild's hand and walk her through just how silly she appears from the outside. I realize in her own mind she probably thought she did a totally awesome job, work worthy of an award and feature seat at the Correspondents' Dinner. She doubtlessly believes her journalistic methods are sound, that she is doing good social justice work by trying to discredit Nick Shirley and derail Trump admin investigations of blameless Somalis. She likely truly believes that Nick Shirley is a terrible human being spreading hateful MAGA propaganda that will damage vulnerable, minority communities and put "our democracy" into peril. I don't think she accomplished the intended "gotcha" expose piece on Shirley, but I don't think she is evil. I think it is something else.

Example #3: Reporter covering Vance: Who's this Aristotle guy anyway?

I'll abbreviate this example for length. I couldn't find the video to link, but from memory I saw another young reporter covering a JD Vance talk. There Vance made reference to Aristotle — you probably know him as one of the most famous philosophers of all. The reporter was apparently baffled by who Aristotle was and had to look up this obscure figure. The reporter also seemed confused as to why anyone would refer to such a figure or that period way back that we refer to as "Ancient Greece." It sounded to me like a high schooler being given a project he/she lacked any interest in. I don't expect reporters at news outlets to be experts in Ancient Greece or especially versed in philosophy, but I do expect them to have some basic knowledge of identification. This I put down to the education system that produces these reporters and journalists. It certainly helps to have some basic educational background in civics and general civilizational history if you are going to be producing media content for the public.

Or maybe there's another reason... One might wonder why Aristotle wasted all that time writing volumes of stuff when he could've just started a podcast. (Oh, and by the way, the most correct way of pronouncing "Socrates" is from the 80s movie Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure. Soo-Crates. Don't even try to argue this point.)

Example #4: The NY Times Not Knowing What NATO Stands For

Let's not forget the prominent headline that had to be altered because New York Times editors didn't know what NATO meant. It's only one of the most important alliances in world history and still very much relevant.

Example #5: WSJ's Slightly Ridiculous Coverage of the Iran Situation on "Hardliners"

The once-vaunted pages of the Wall Street Journal have, on and off, been running some questionable coverage on Iran. Especially when it comes to US-Iran conflicts, about which it has repeatedly used these terms "moderates" and "hardliners." I find their coverage painfully naive at times and hardly demonstrating a firm understanding of the nature of the Iranian regime. There is this notion that the US pressing the regime will result in the "moderates" losing power and these highly objectionable "hardliners" taking power in Iran.

Also, the Journal often suggests that the Trump administration killed all the moderates and the only people within the Iranian system that would bring peace. Now there are several positions on the current Iranian conflict that I find valid. However, completely being hoodwinked on the nature of the Iranian regime I find objectionable. So how exactly was the establishment and continuation of the Iranian regime ever "moderate"? Perhaps in the next round of futile negotiations, Vance can get Iran to moderate by agreeing to stop chanting "Death to America!" and replace it with "Tuberculous to America," or something a little less severe. Maybe they can get Iran to at least settle on "AIDS to America." If there were minimal movement on hyperbolic rhetoric by the IRGC and Islamic clerics, maybe there could be an outside chance of reform on more tangible things. But probably not. Force seems to be the only method known for "moderating" Iranian activity.

Failure to grasp who and what you are dealing with is a big problem. And despite having resources and a wide range of potential hires, the WSJ news pages seem to not "get it."

Example #6: F-You, Joe Biden has Never Been Better. You Can't Handle the Truth

Who could forget Joe Scarborough's enthusiasm in defending a mentally and physically deteriorating President Biden? If there is an American Media Hall of Fame, then this MSNBC moment deserves to be in it. The conviction and gusto with which the Morning Joe host provided us his keen political insights shortly before Biden was led away by the powers that be within the Democrat Party.

The thing is, Scarborough might have meant what he said. Or at least put on a great show of it. But many others, apparently never having dealt with individuals with declining health in advanced age, believed everything was swell and on the up. This wasn't so much a political issue as a human one that required common sense observations. But there we were, plenty of young reporters saying the same thing and criticizing comments regarding Biden's condition.

The Long Lost Newspaperman and the Changed Media Landscape

A full discussion of the legacy media and how it has changed (sometimes under heavy stress) is beyond the scope of this post. The old models of getting funding and running a traditional newspaper or large media conglomerate appear either broken or in flux for the foreseeable future. The vast majority don't get a local and national newspaper in those boxes next to your mailbox anymore. The 6 o'clock nightly news is no longer a ritualized institution. In an age of various subscriptions (which people sign up for and sometimes forget about on autopay), it seems like traditional media is one form that got largely left out. Many even think that the news should be free and that it ought to be catered to and funneled for the individual. So why waste money on a subscription? The medium has been confused with the sources of the news. So when someone says "I read it on the internet" or "I saw it on YouTube," we're hearing an open-ended statement. That's like giving radio or TV as a source.

Years ago — okay, more like decades ago — my grandfather would contribute to local papers in North Carolina. Some ordinary readers could write and had their "letters to the editors" published. A regular reader might identify the letter writer since there were recurring names and a bit of back and forth. It functioned in a smaller circuit a little bit like Ricochet. Now, as the story was told, there was a frequent letter contributor who had this signature tagline to his intro. If memory serves, it went like this:

"As Will Rogers used to say, all I know is just what I read in the papers."

He then plunged into his discourse. The letter writer seemed to mean it as a running joke, using it as a familiar springboard. I can't confirm here, but as best I can determine, he was likely from Carthage, NC. The full (but frequently clipped) Rogers quote was as follows:

“Well, all I know is just what I read in the papers, and that’s an alibi for my ignorance.”

Back then it was at least expected that the newspaperman be able to read, write, reason, critique, learn the ways of the world, and refuse to be someone's fool. It was a skill that you built up over time — something of a tradecraft. Things have changed.

I'll offer some brief points to start us figuring out where things got worse. (I don't mean to overromanticize past journalism — yellow journalism, planted stories, spiked stories, concealed bias were not myths. I'm not attempting to compare the current state of affairs to an ideal, but rather a basic standard of competency. Even if that competency is being directed at doing a snow job on me. What I'm trying to get at is a basic level of not completely sucking and being absurd.) Here are some offerings:

(1) Cutting seasoned editors.

(2) Turning to college kids in J-school programs taught by impractical professors instead of learning it as a trade, "earning your stripes" and "cutting your teeth" in the industry. Sometimes well-to-do college kids miss out on the grit and underbelly of life.

(3) The re-orientation from objectivity and "getting scoops" towards Social Justice activism. Pushing the Message™ became paramount. This was augmented by left-wing marches through the institutions.

(4) Reduced literacy in the culture in general: People used to be able to read more and had longer attention spans. This helped reporters and writers be better informed of the ways of man's nature and the world by other works, including the greats.

(5) Fewer crusty, old, jaded guys who don't mind taking journalistic scalps and their replacement by baby-faced, naive, heavily indoctrinated young women and soy boys doing the reporting. The tossing aside of earned experience.

(6) The altered media markets and pressures.

With this in mind, I have a suggestion. I think every major US city should find an old newspaperman and have him stuffed and put on display at the local natural history museum alongside the other displays of woolly mammoths, sabre-tooth tigers, and dinosaurs. That way, children of the next generation might be introduced and learn about this now-extinct species on a school field trip. Have an info pack and QR code to scan and read up on him. The display will have him in suspenders, chain-smoking cigarettes, with a flip pad, a worn, stained jacket hanging, and his typewriter set-up. There will be a picture of his wife (marriage on the rocks) and his favorite dog with him outside. And of course, the dirty papers with print and all.

Did H.L. Menken Make a Good Point?

The notorious writer H.L. Mencken had a few critical things to say about American journalism. And by "few" I mean a lot. He was bountiful in his criticisms, earning something of a reputation for being an overly negative jerk, so perhaps we shouldn't be surprised to see one of his own professions on the target list. But did he make some good observations? What would he have to say about the current state of media and American culture? These might be topics worth pondering for a bit.

I'll just post a couple quotes from the critic Mencken on media and culture:

American journalism (like the journalism of any other country) is predominantly paltry and worthless. Its pretensions are enormous, but its achievements are insignificant.” ― H. L. Mencken

“Civilization, in fact, grows more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary. Wars are no longer waged by the will of superior men, capable of judging dispassionately and intelligently the causes behind them and the effects flowing out of them. They are now begun by first throwing a mob into a panic; they are ended only when it has spent its ferine fury.” ― H. L. Mencken

The Wrap

The examples above are certainly not intended to be inclusive of all media episodes related to the topic. You could probably think of adding others.

Well, I've already exceeded my column's word count limit, and I missed my deadline by over a month, so clearly I'm not the white knight to rescue the situation. It's been said that "you don't hate the media enough." Well, I certainly don't deny that there are malevolent characters within the US legacy media. There are plenty of instances of intentionally coming up with word games and no shortage of hit job interviews. News items do get censored and stories either not pursued or buried. Despite it all, I think malice is an incomplete explanation. I don't think there are quite so many nefarious characters to go around. Instead, I think we have to look for additional explanations, sometimes the simplest ones.

Who is doing the reporting? What do they know (or think they know)? What is their level of cognition and understanding? What about the Ws I was taught as a young student: the What, Where, When, Who, Why facts essential to a report. The basics. Not being easily duped. Catching wind of something fishy going on and doing follow-ups. And maybe one other factor...

Perhaps there's a fragment of a letter to a paper from a long-deceased North Carolinian writer channeling a bit of Will Rodgers:

If Stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?

Perhaps we finally have a solution.