Good piece, Matt. Keep making noise and bringing up real issues. The people of this country need more in-depth reporting.

A lot more.

As if politics hasn’t always, throughout human history, been full of gossips, leeches, liars and rats. Politics is all about “puff pieces” and “gossip”. Go ask Ceasar, Louis XVI, Thomas Jefferson or James Garfield.

Taibbi’s indignation is almost as absurd as his overblown earnestness and sense of entitlement. Go back to the kiddie pool, Matt.

But why take my word for it, when you could always trust the opinions of a man whose chosen moniker is ‘deeznutz’?

“ishy with it”, stout, mature fellow that he would like us to believe (btw — it’s ‘Caesar’) comments in his pithy diss, “But why take my word for it, when you could always trust the opinions of a man whose chosen moniker is ‘deeznutz’? ”
Whatever. “Go back to the kiddie pool, Matt”. Heavy stuff, Ishy . . .

I agree with the man who said Obama was more believable than Hillary. I dont see why being the smart one is bad.

vote lik roper for naked president 2008!

I suppose ‘ishy with it’ doesn’t care about what a prospective President will do with his/her well earned tax dollars. They can spend it on an escalator to nowhere for all ishy cares, as long as they sound ‘real’ when they’re doing it.

It is precisely this abdication of thought which allows idiots like GWB to be elected…

Spot on! Imus isn’t the only misogynist nut out there, either. Consider Chris Matthews, Mike Barnicle, Patrick Healy, Andrew Sullivan, et al. There’s something to the Irish-Catholic male cabal, eh? Must be something in the holy water!

Ishy with it-
Actually it was chosen for me by a good friend of mine. It refers to both my huge testes and my crazy lines of thinking.
So, you’re saying that just because this has taken place all throughout history that we should just sit back and be excited that the country now knows who Anna Nicole’s babby’s daddy is? We’re news consumers and almost all of what we’re being fed is junk food.

stop consuming. start thinking.

Once again, a great article.. it reminds me of what was written about Hillary’s tired p.c. speaking style a few months back, which I also enjoyed.

The sad truth about the majority of this country is how our patience is slowly but surely wearing thin. You take a look at any media outlet; for the left, The Daily Show, for the right, Fox News, for the rest, NBC/ABC/CBS. If there was only one commonality between them all, it’s that they’re looking to get ratings by the easiest means available, aka focusing in on appearance. Political journalism is no different – the main consumers of it want their news fast, to the point, and perhaps most importantly, attention grabbing. What would be more appealing to the average web-surfer or television watcher: a debate on the intricate details of immigration policy, or a clip of any canidate proclaiming “It’s time for a change!” at a campaign stop? There’s a reason more people watch American Idol than anything on MSNBC (not to say that’s much better): fast sounds and colors.

Admittingly, how a candidate relates to a community does matter in the long run – but not to the point of celebrity like now. My advice: attend a campaign stop for yourself, as you’re not likely to hear Barak Obama spend an hour or so talking about his hands or his smile.

Didn’t Marcia win the driving contest in that Brady Bunch episode? I think Greg broke an egg at the finish line or something.

Doesn’t Rolling Stone have fact checkers?!

(I liked this article regardless)

This is a topic that gives me road rage. The worst part about the lame media coverage is that the candidates don’t even feel the need to articulate their positions. Candidates simply craft a persona. Remember Gore desperately trying to appear less intellectual in the third presidential debate back in 2000? The idiot “analysts” afterward talk about the debate as if they were judging a beauty pageant. “He seemed kind of stiff.”

The amount to which polititions themselves become involved in image making concernes me greatly.

I concur. Rolling Stone’s political coverage is breathtakingly stupid.

at this point in the election shouldn’t the media be making bios and indepth exposees on the candidates rather than commenting on their coiffe’s and ability to milk the cash cows? Shouldn’t we be learning where these people come from, what they have supported in the past? what they have withdrawn support for? Who their main contributors have been in the past, how that support affected their votes in the congress(if it’s relevant)? etc. etc. you know, stories with substance that help the populace make an informed decision rather than a puff piece designed to illicit some emotional response that actually leads to stupid choices as were made in the last presidential election. In other words, write for the readers rather than the pollsters.

An interestingly paranoid point of view from Tinfoil Hat there.

I don’t doubt that the press has often been about ‘fluff’, but the real problem here is that this ‘fluff’ is finding its way into mainstream coverage, onto CNN and other important channels.

In the UK, the tabloid press deals with the fluff, while the broadsheet newspapers get on with the real reporting on actual issues, not presentation. The main news channels have also not fallen into the trap of presentation over policy details. Would that the same were true in the USA…

Michael, you commentary holds true only in as far as coverage of issues of little interest to the puppetmasters. Do you get balanced coverage on world trade? On the peace movement? Do you believe NBC’s version of what’s happening in Iraq? Do you believe what the WSJ says about Hugo Chavez? Do you really believe that Oswald shot JFK? Sometimes I really wish that I could.

Jed Clampett said it Best…

Let’s get the Real Issues, congressional voting records, info on supporters, goals if elected, educational background, integrity scale, experience, legislation sponsered, etc…

Have had Enough of amateur “celebreties” ala “American Idol” the saddest commentary of “what’s on America’s mind”…Yuk…A vast Wasteland…

Taibbi,as usual, has great insight into the absurdity of this crap, but is anyone else sick of his adolescent-boy streak, as in writing that a candidate would be asked about, “the fat girl he banged in high school?” When he wrote about the Imus thing he talked about how televisions demeans women (yea, we know – and how gleefully he used the word skank in that column), then he turns around and does it himself. A column some time ago (another one about how much Hillary Clinton sucks) actually made reference to her “rusting vagina” and how she was defined by her philandering husband. Only in your mind Matt, and those of other sexists.

Good points. Of course the subtext is that journalists feel that the candidates issues are irrelevant as to whether they will win, and since the approach is like to a sporting event their only interest in figuring out who’s gonna win. Of course, presentation does have a lot to do with who wins, but a lot of that can be laid back at the feet of the press, who don’t really offer anything else for voters to work with.

A Fluffanutter of a column Matt!
Lets hope the whereas,wherebys and whereins of contract writing are next to undergo the transformative power of television coverage.