Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
This week on the podcast, new minted CNN Chief Washington correspondent Jake Tapper stops by to discuss his new book The Outpost: An Untold Story of American Valor as well as the politics of covering…politics. Then, our old friend Bill Kristol joins for a bracing conversation about no less than the future of the party and the conservative movement. Nothing like a little light conversation for your earbuds.
Music from this week’s episode:
- Fever by Peggy Lee
The Ricochet Podcast opening theme was composed and produced by James Lileks.
EJHill is the cure for whatever ails us.
Get a free audio book on us. Go to AudiblePodcast.com/Ricochet
Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
Edited 10 minutes ago
Oh I don’t know Yeti.
I would have loved to have asked him about his unique position as “least-hated-journalist” on the right, which is quite evident on Twitter and what he does to cultivate that.
I would have asked him whether CNN means to position itself between MSNBC and Fox.
I would have asked him why the spectrum of reaction to news stories leaves out the right almost entirely and when it includes the right focuses on the nutty rather than the articulate.
I would have asked him why mainstream reports state categorically and inaccurately that failing to raise the debt ceiling triggers default.
Mostly I would have asked him how we get a better, fairer hearing from those, such as himself, who purport to mediate the news.
As for James’ cut about spousal conflict of interest, I would far rather he asked the question outright rather than make a passive aggressive allusion and then quickly abandon the point.
We will have Jake back on in a few weeks and we’ll have the bias in media conversation in more depth. But here’s the thing: we can ask him about it and he’ll give pretty much another version of the Major Garrett story. And then where do you go? Make more accusations that the media is in fact bias? Don’t we allknowthat on some level? . . .
Of course, we all know media bias. But if it doesn’t do any good to talk about it, why bother having Tapper back to chat about it?
Yes, just whining about media bias doesn’t do much good. But pointing out bias is not just whining and is worthwhile.
So maybe on Tapper’s next visit, Lileks will ask him directly, “You suggest that not voting in presidential elections preserves your independence. If that’s true, how can you claim you are independent-minded when your wife is a Washington muckety-muck for Planned Parenthood? Aren’t you troubled about ‘reports’ like this and this wherein all you did was carry water for Obama on abortion?”
All great questions. I have been in touch with Jake already today and we’ll have him on in a few weeks specifically on this topic. I’ll save this post and use it as the basis for the discussion then.
I would have asked him whether CNN means to position itself between MSNBC and Fox.
I would have asked him why the spectrum of reaction to news stories leaves out the right almost entirely and when it includes the right focuses on the nutty rather than the articulate.
I would have asked him why mainstream reports state categorically and inaccurately that failing to raise the debt ceiling triggers default.
Mostly I would have asked him how we get a better, fairer hearing from those, such as himself, who purport to mediate the news.
As for James’ cut about spousal conflict of interest, I would far rather he asked the question outright rather than make a passive aggressive allusion and then quickly abandon the point. ·10 minutes ago
Thanks Yeti,
Again I understand the problem, so here are some palatable questions Jake may be able/willing to answer, although judging by his response before I don’t hold out much hope.
Given that he admits after all there is bias, lets ask him what he thinks we should do about it. How to best approach it.
If that is really going to be the case – and I get your point here – and as a guest he won’t be challenged, or if challenged, he will become agitated and alienated, then there is no point in having him on.
Because you will be insulting your listeners letting Jake Tapper pretend that Fred Barnes – no raving media-bias-fringe whiner has no point. Or that he and Major Garret is typical of all reporters in the mainstream media, or that because the White House is mad at him, that this suffices as a rebuttal to a column crafted by Fred Barnes.
Great questions Trace. I agree with every word.
Did anyone else fast-forward through the entire Jake Tapper segment?
As I recall, not so much fast forward as passively listen/ignore.
I found the podcast rather dull and devoid of any real content. I like Rob, but these ‘resident RINO squish” faux-victim card he keeps playing – or hiding behind – is getting old. The question itself, and the way he asked the question about media bias was so timid and afraid, so full of disclaimers, he hates the question, the conversation, but he has to ask because he’s “curious” came off as a complete mess and Jake was allowed to give a rambling incomprehensible answer which was full of dissembling.
I know Jake would not have come on the program if he thought he was going to be beaten up or pressed to compromise his standing with his colleagues. He was there to sell a book. And so the problem is built-in right there. But really ?
Tapper rebutted the overall charge of media bias by claiming that hepersonally wasn’t biased. Then he had the temerity to use as an example the ONE other decent journalist in the WHPC ,former Fox correspondent Major Garret! Okay, this is an educated reporter and these are sharp interviewers? Oh it was the last question as jake was going out the door.
I used to believe that but I’m now seriously questioning this idea.
Fox beats MSNBC and CNN combined by a small margin. But this isn’t saying much because that’s just cable and satellite. ABC NBC CBS etc. have a monopoly on the low-information voters. And I’m not just talking about news programs. The View Oprah Ellen, Jon Stewart Colbert the list is endless. If anything the “unbiased” mainstream media should be countering the memes that are propagated on these entertainment shows with facts if they really wanted to be fair.
The welcome addition of these new outlets comes with a downside and some unintended consequences.
More choice equals polarization and the ability to get news tailored to your preconceptions. Conservative thought is getting ghettoized and the echo-chamber effect is more pronounced. Obviously their echo-chamber beat out our echo-chamber recently.
There is not less bias in the media today. There is more and it’s more overt and strident than ever. I’m almost 60 and I remember recognizing media bias at around age 24. I remember Huntley/Brinkley and Walter Cronkite. Looking back they had to appeal to all of America and so they were much more subtle in their bias. Of course since these were the only outlets they had more power and influence, but there were limits to how far they could go.
Today its quite obvious to any thoughtful person where media news anchors and most reporters stand politically. And since personality trumps substance, that Katie Couric thinks something is more important than the issue itself. I like Katie, Katie likes and is nice to Harry Reid and she isn’t so nice to Mitch McConnell so I like Harry Reid too and think he must be right. This is how low information voters think.
They don’t read or watch much news. What they do see in news is snippets which favor Democrats. And don’t get me started about chyrons on TV and the blatant bias they reveal having a profound effect.
Republicans have to learn how to win in the world we live in, not the one we wish we lived in. Otherwise, we’re doomed. There are ways to deal with what you’re describing, but I don’t think complaining about media bias is a particularly effective one, especially as you point out, everyone–including the journalists– knows it exists.
Running smart, attractive candidates who don’t fall into Akin like traps would be a good start. Another would be for Presidential candidates to not allow their opponent to define them as rich and out of touch without putting up a spirited, good humored defense.
Chryons? We’re complaining about chyrons now?
Chryons? We’re complaining about chyrons now? ·7 minutes ago
Very funny. I was reminded of the opening of the Joni Mitchell album, “Shadows and Light,” which includes a short clip from Rebel Without A Cause in which the James Dean character is arguing with his parents. The father says, “You can’t be idealistic all your life,” and the mother turns on him and says, “Are you going to preach? Do we have to listen to a sermon now?”
Maybe you can work it into a future podcast:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3ywUorI4S4
“Running smart, attractive candidates who don’t fall into Akin like traps would be a good start. Another would be for Presidential candidates to not allow their opponent to define them as rich and out of touch without putting up a spirited, good humored defense.
I certainly agree, but we have even less control over fringe candidates like Akin, and as I recall, Romney was considered our best hope, and he probably was – that’s the real world too. Weirdos and duds are going to get nominated. I think we have even less control over individual voters and their whims and wishes than we do the MSM.
And to be sure, no matter who Republicans nominate, no matter how level-headed, or worthy and unlikely they are to fall into traps, media depiction will trump reality. There is too much evidence.
John McCain media hero until 2008. Romney, no scandals, obviously competent, non-threatening, a pretty good debater, moderate a competent VP no Sarah Palin, running against a virtual failure president who broke most of his promises to his own base and to Americans in general running with record unemployment.
Yes! This cannot be overstated.
The more serious problem is not the Jake Tappers and the news media, as such, but the popular culture.
Most people get their “news” mainly from the talk shows. Even if they consume a little raw news from a purportedly straight news source, it’s the talk shows and the popular culture programming that tell them what to think abou the news.
The news media merely mills the raw grain into flours suitable for the popular entertainment shows to bake into an appealing liberal cake.
Jimmy Kimmel is far and away more important than Jake Tapper.
(Kimmel’s lame rif last night playing off the specious poll about the unpopularity of congress is a perfect example of such manipulation, notwithstanding the “balance” of the second half of the segment.)
Sorry, but McCain torpedoed himself when he suspended his campaign to deal with the financial crisis. It was un-presidential and downright wacky. And any candidate in any race who gets tripped up on “What newspapers do you read?” should be castigated and lose automatically, regardless of what party they are in.
Both self-inflicted wounds and unforced errors. This is the big leagues here and voters (especially fickle undecideds) won’t forgive candidates who make them.
Again, the world we live in, not the one we wish we lived in.
John McCain media hero until 2008. Romney, no scandals, obviously competent, non-threatening, a pretty good debater, moderate a competent VP no Sarah Palin, running against a virtual failure president who broke most of his promises to his own base and to Americans in general running with record unemployment. ·11 minutes ago
How was that bit manipulative? I honestly don’t get how it was.
Jimmy Kimmel is far and away more important than Jake Tapper.
(Kimmel’s lame rif last night playing off the specious poll about the unpopularity of congress is a perfect example of such manipulation, notwithstanding the “balance” of the second half of the segment.) ·3 minutes ago
Jimmy Kimmel is far and away more important than Jake Tapper.
(Kimmel’s lame rif last night playing off the specious poll about the unpopularity of congress is a perfect example of such manipulation, notwithstanding the “balance” of the second half of the segment.) ·
How was that bit manipulative? I honestly don’t get how it was.
The bit propagandized for Obama in his ongoing fight with “congress”:
“Congress” is liberal code for “Republicans.” Majority opinion, especially in the form of contempt, is hard for ordinary folks to resist. So the proganda value of drawing attention to a (specious) poll showing congress less popular than head lice seems obvious to me.
The second part of the bit–interviews with people who said said congress was worse than lice but couldn’t name their own congressmen–ostensibly supplied balance, but actually allowed Kimmel’s viewers to execute a psychological gymnastic, by saying: “Aren’t those people stupid,” thereby removing themselves from the ranks of the stupid at whom they laugh, while allowing them still to embrace the original suggestion that congress (i.e., Republicans) are lower than lice.
It ain’t that complicated.
Wow…Comedians have been making fun of politicians since jokes were invented. I didn’t see one iota of partisanship in it.
Honestly, if Republicans look at a piece like that and think we’re being victimized, then perhaps all hope is lost.
“Congress” is liberal code for “Republicans.” Majority opinion, especially in the form of contempt, is hard for ordinary folks to resist. So the proganda value of drawing attention to a (specious) poll showing congress less popular than head lice seems obvious to me.The bit propagandized for Obama in his ongoing fight with “congress”:
The second part of the bit–interviews with people who said said congress was worse than lice but couldn’t name their own congressmen–ostensibly supplied balance, but actually allowed Kimmel’s viewers to execute a psychological gymnastic, by saying: “Aren’tthosepeople stupid,” thereby removing themselves from the ranks of the stupid at whom they laugh, while allowing them still to embrace the original suggestion that congress (i.e., Republicans) are lower than lice.
It ain’t that complicated. ·50 minutes ago
That part is true. I think it’s devolved. Comedians in the Bob Hope-Johnny Carson mold appealed across the spectrum. They went after the politicians, not their supporters.
Today they denigrate more than the pol – they’re after the belief system of the rank-and-file. The fragmented media means that they can define success downwardly. They don’t need conservative viewers and they’ve been liberated by that.
The culture at large has devolved. And this goes back to my first point — we have to figure out how to win elections and debates in the world we live in. You want to change the culture? Win some elections. Losers don’t get to dictate policy. If that means having to give in on some issues (I think we all know which ones), then so be it in the short run.
Here is the Fred Barnes piece Tapper brought up, and then avoided addressing, and one Yeti would do well to read.
Somehow this conversation devolved into talking about late night TV and jokes. That wasn’t my point, and it isn’t the core of Astonishing’ point either I don’t think.
Yeti, did you ever watch the Press briefings when Bush was President? Or Reagan? Compare and contrast, and get back to me. I can’t believe I have to do this it’s so tired but just imagine what the press reaction would be had someone thrown a shoe at Obama. There are hundreds of similar examples.
There is not a monolithic media, there is a herd media or a flock media. No one understands how or why a flock of birds change course all at once. But it’s pretty easy to understand why the media lights on story A, and ignores story B. There is a clear pattern, and it has to do with party affiliation.
And why if what you believe is actually true, why did Jake Tapper – an educated man, Dartmouth – gave such a rambling, sputtering non-logical answer to a simple question?
“Congress” is liberal code for “Republicans.” Majority opinion, especially in the form of contempt, is hard for ordinary folks to resist. So the proganda value of drawing attention to a (specious) poll showing congress less popular than head lice seems obvious to me.The bit propagandized for Obama in his ongoing fight with “congress”:
The second part of the bit–interviews with people who said said congress was worse than lice but couldn’t name their own congressmen–ostensibly supplied balance, but actually allowed Kimmel’s viewers to execute a psychological gymnastic, by saying: “Aren’tthosepeople stupid,” thereby removing themselves from the ranks of the stupid at whom they laugh, while allowing them still to embrace the original suggestion that congress (i.e., Republicans) are lower than lice.
It ain’t that complicated.
Blue Yeti: …Comedians have been making fun of politicians since jokes were invented. I didn’t see one iota of partisanship in it.
. . .
I suppose the result of a study counting late-night zingers targeting Obama and Romney was mere coincidence.
But let’s not waste time on such nonsense. Instead, let’s talk about a really great bridge you might be interested in purchasing.
You have it backwards. No elections will be won without changing the culture. The culture is dictated by the media. Your solutions are just as magical. We can’t control nominations of various fringe states and the odd pol like an Akin or a Christine O’Donnell. . The media make them the focus of ridicule while ignoring the many fringe Democrats worthy of ridicule.
You have it backwards. No elections will be won without changing the culture. The culture is dictated by the media. Your solutions are just as magical. We can’t control nominations of various fringe states and the odd pol like an Akin or a Christine O’Donnell. . The media make them the focus of ridicule while ignoring the many fringe Democrats worthy of ridicule.
Yes, look at the tight-wigjobs like Boxer, the lightweights like Murray. And then there’s my own congressperson, the inestimable Sheila Jackson Lee! Their doozys get laughed off in a day or two. (How has Joe Biden remained in office?) For similar stupidities, our pols get hounded from politics.
We need to start playing rough!
Really? How’s that been working for us (on a national level) lately?
And I do not accept the notion that there is a monolithic media who decide what stories shall be popular that day. The media is in effect a huge marketplace. Stories get traction because the market –readers and viewers– “buy” them. A gaffing politician will get picked up by the media no matter what the party affiliation is. Ask Bill Clinton, ask Anthony Weiner, etc. etc.
You have it backwards. No elections will be won without changing the culture. The culture is dictated by the media. Your solutions are just as magical. We can’t control nominations of various fringe states and the odd pol like an Akin or a Christine O’Donnell. . The media make them the focus of ridicule while ignoring the many fringe Democrats worthy of ridicule. ·49 minutes ago
If our national candidates can’t figure out how to effectively defend themselves against Leno, Letterman, and Kimmel, then I don’t want them dealing with Putin, Hamas, and China. I mean, really.
The truth is, the ribbing Romney took from these guys was mostly about what a straight arrow he was or how rich he was, both of which were true.
No one took more abuse in the MSM than George W. Bush, both as a candidate and as President. Yet he was elected. Twice. It can be done.
But let’s not waste time on such nonsense. Instead, let’s talk about a really great bridge you might be interested in purchasing. ·1 hour ago I suppose the result of a study counting late-night zingers targeting Obama and Romney was mere coincidence.
But let’s not waste time on such nonsense. Instead, let’s talk about a really great bridge you might be interested in purchasing. ·1 hour ago I suppose the result of a study counting late-night zingers targeting Obama and Romney was mere coincidence.
Blue Yeti: If our national candidates can’t figure out how to effectively defend themselves against Leno, Letterman, and Kimmel, then I don’t want them dealing with Putin, Hamas, and China. . . .
That’s a nice bit of rhetoric on your part, Yeti, but ignores the abiding historical reality of how comedy shapes popular opinion in democracies. Are you unfamiliar with Aristophanes, whose harmless comedy got Socrates killed? Speaking of Russians and Chinese, the commies knew exactly what they were doing when they very purposefully infiltrated Hollywood. (If the Islamists ever figure out how to be funny, we are dead goners.)
Sorry to quote myself, but just it occurred to me that Jake may have been listening too much to Jay Carney who answers questions in quite the same way and it seems to satisfy the rest of the WHPC.
The answer to less bias in journalism is easy: hire more journalists. Which means paying for more news. Doesn’t seem to be much appetite for that though. So we quickly run into some economic realities of the news business.
I will take the unpopular stance and argue that we have less bias in the media today because we have more choice. Because of Fox News, Daily Caller, Washington Examiner, etc, we have a choice as to where we buy our news. The MSM has less and less influence every day.