Geoff Decker’s whereIstand blog

The video of NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams interviewing MSNBC reporter Lee Cowan, the reporter following Barack Obama’s campaign, is almost a week old. But if you haven’t seen it, its worth a look. If nothing else, Cowan’s gushing tone and rhetoric for Obama’s campaign helps us keep a necessary perspective on media coverage of political campaigns:

“From a reporter’s point of view, its almost hard to remain objective because its infectious, the energy. It sort of goes against your core as a reporter to say that.”

It isn’t just the words that annoys me — Cowan seems to be bursting at the seams with admiration for the man that he’s been charged to cover as a reporter…who’s only objective is to remain, well, objective.

Surrounded constantly by charismatic individuals with inspiring messages — be it Obama, Clinton, Huckabee or Paul — I can only imagine that it must be a difficult job for journalists to stay entirely robotic in their filings. They are, after all, getting to know these people on an intimate level. Brian Williams, ever the professional, addressed this on his nightly blog, and made me reconsider my initial outrage (although I’m not willing to dismiss Williams entirely for his role in the embarrassing interview):

Lee admits “…it’s almost hard to remain objective…” which as he implies is our goal in our work every day. He’s referring to what all of us who have covered campaigns have felt from time to time: it’s impossible to get the long view…the view from 40,000 feet…while operating at sea level, and inside the bubble.

Good point.

I’m not claiming to have a superior ethical standard to MSNBC…hell I’d write a warm and fuzzy piece for James Dolan if he gave me free seats to a Knicks game.

What I can’t really tolerate is the public admission of a reporter’s struggle for objectivity. I want my political reporters to be stoic and focused on getting the story right. Lord knows Obama has enough momentum in the primaries that he doesn’t need any more help from cable news reporters — however left-leaning that news network is.

It seems that ESPN’s glamorous PTI studio distracts viewers from the lazy analysis spewed forth by their hosts, Michael Wilbon and Tony Kornheiser.

Well, that might be a bit harsh, but you get the idea from watching this video on Washington Post’s Web site. It’s essentially the Post’s version of PTI except produced in what looks like the hallway a few doors down from the newspaper’s mail room.

In fairness, it’s clear that Wilbon is under the weather and can barely speak coherently…let alone his mind. For proper appreciation, you need to see the video but here are some highlights.

• • (:50) “Last weekend, every home team won, right?” — Wilbon (smug look)

“No, Giants won on the road” — Kornheiser

“That’s right….three of four” — Wilbon (smug look)

“No, no, no! Jacksonville, too. Two out of four, so nice call by you.”– Kornheiser

• (1:13) “I’m gonna go road team in every game this weekend.” — Wilbon (smug look)

• (1:25) “I’m picking Jacksonville. I’m picking….the….the….Seattles” — Wilbon (losing the smug look and doing his best impersonation of a drunk co-ed jumping on her team’s bandwagon just in time for the post-season.)

A little later in the video, Wilbon retracts on his boast that all road teams will win when he realizes the Indianapolis Colts are, in fact, the home team against the San Deigo Chargers.

I normally like these guys and I wouldn’t expect this kind of B-league analysis on PTI’s show, but this is a great example of how even the celebrity columnists of our day can show themselves to be completely out of their element.

Link: http://www.realclearsports.com/video_log/2008/01/wilbon_kornheiser_nfl_picks.html

Fox Sports’ associated BSC Web site, bcsfootball.org, is implementing some sneaky propaganda to refute the fierce debate over how college football determines a national champion.

At this link, the site offers up a comprehensive background on the Bowl Championship Series and follows it up with personal testimony from public figures supporting the system. The list of people is a who’s who of big-time Division I college football: major conference commissioners (Big 12 and Pac-10 Commishes Kevin Weiburg and Tom Hansen), former Heisman winners (Matt Leinart), big-time coaches (Mark Richt, Rich Rodriguez, Bobby Bowden, Bill Callahan), Athletic Directors (former Nebraska AD Steve Pederson and Florida AD Jeremy Foley), and, of course, commentators (ESPN’s Beano Cook).

The title of these testimonials is, in some cases, misleading: Why the BCS works. Many of these quotes aren’t talking about the current BCS system at all, but were pulled out of context to seem appropriate.

Forget where I stand on this issue for a moment. Forget even the blog post I made earlier in the year applauding Fox Sports’ efforts to fairly report the BCS debate, despite their conflict of interest in also being the network that is broadcasting the games.

Neither of those things matter now because a) Fox Sports misrepresents the opinions for some of these public figures and b) Fox Sports no longer presents any opinions at all that oppose the BCS system. Believe me, there are shitloads.
Before I continue, I need to clarify why this bothers me. As a whereistand.com editor, whose mission is to reliably present the opinions of all public figures on all issues that can be known, I go through great efforts to analyze and interpret quotes in the news to determine how they might fit into the many issues on this site.

As is the case with most things in life, very few debate issues are black and white. That’s why there are literally dozens of issues that comes up when you type ‘Iraq’ into the search bar. It is why a ‘Barry Bonds’ search results in six issues.

Simply put, things are complicated.

So when Fox Sports lazily picks and pulls quotes out of context and pastes it onto their site at their convenience, I feel the need to call them out on it.

Currently whereistand.com has no less than four issues dealing directly with the BCS controversy. Without a doubt, the two most heated of these are whether the BCS is effective and if college football should have a playoff.

These are, of course, different issues. One who thinks the BCS is ineffective doesn’t automatically think a playoff solves everything. If they do in fact believe in a playoff system, they’re likely to agree that the BCS is ineffective. If that sounds complicated, just review the chain rule in your pre-calculus logic lesson book.

Here’s where Fox Sports must have fallen asleep during that class freshmen year: just because Matt Leinart says he’s not for a playoff doesn’t mean he’s endorsing the current BCS system. So why would such a quote be attributed under Why the BCS works, as it is on the site in question?

And when Mark Richt, who was on the record in the New York Times as saying his Georgia Bulldogs “didn’t think [they] got a fair chance” and “shouldn’t have got disqualified before [they] even got a chance”, it didn’t exactly sound like a ringing endorsement of the BCS system, did it?

Fox Sports, however, reported an entirely different quote from Richt, presumably taken before Georgia found themselves as team on the outside looking in:

“I like [the BCS system] the way it is-I really do. I think there’s enough integrity in those human polls that I think everybody’s gonna vote what they think is most fair.”

Ignore, for a moment, Richt’s laughable agenda-driven flip-flop. Fox Sports, as a news site first and a promoter of its broadcast games second, should at the very least have the decency of attaching dates to the attributed quotes so that there is some frame of reference to them. But they didn’t. And curious readers wondering what the big fuss is all about are left to believe that the BCS system is unanimously supported by all College Football public figures that matter.

As a public relations tactic, they mastered their objective — to persuade their ‘public’ to think a certain way. As a news site, they dropped the ball.

whereIstand Tags

• FOX
• BarryBonds
• margfg
• RichRodriguez
• Is the BCS an effective method for determining the national champion?
• Should the BCS weigh mid-major and major conference teams equally?
• Who will win the 2008 BCS National Championship?
• Should college football institute a playoff system?
• Should the U.S. deploy more troops to Iraq?
• Should the U.S. set a timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq?
• Has the invasion of Iraq been successful?
• Based on the information available now, was the invasion of Iraq justified?
• Is Iraq engaged in a civil war?
• Has the surge in military troops made progress in Iraq?
• Should Iraq be divided into three autonomous regions?
• Should Congress fund a troop surge in Iraq?
• What should be the United States’ strategy in Iraq?
• Has the American media presented an accurate picture of the war in Iraq?
• Does stability in Iraq affect national security in the United States?
• Should Iraq be the central front in the war on terror?
• Should the U.S. set up permanent military bases in Iraq?
• What is the most appropriate term to describe the U.S. led military action in Iraq?
• Will Iraq become a stable democracy?
• Will coalition forces’ efforts in Iraq help spread democracy throughout the Middle East?
• Is a civil war likely in Iraq?
• Should Iraq’s national oil industry be privatized?
• Is Iraq better off since the U.S. invasion?
• Prior to the invasion of Iraq, did President Bush take into consideration all of the available intelligence concerning Iraq’s WMD programs?
• Has the American media presented an accurate picture of the War in Iraq?
• Do the American forces deployed to Iraq have adequate resources?
• Has the strategy in Iraq made the U.S. safer?
• Which has been the greatest cause of sectarian violence in Iraq?
• Should the U.S. set up permanent military bases in Iraq?
• Should the U.S. set a timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq?
• Will President Bush begin drawing down troops in Iraq before he leaves office?
• Have the U.S. troops deployed to Iraq been trained adequately?
• What effect has the Iraq War had on U.S. national security?
• Does the U.S. have a responsibility to stay in Iraq until civil order is restored?
• Should Barry Bonds be voted into the Hall of Fame?
• Should Barry Bonds’ home run record have an asterisk?
• Should the Baseball Hall of Fame accept Barry Bonds’ 756th home run ball branded with an asterisk?
• Will Alex Rodriguez break Barry Bonds’ all-time home run record?
• Should Bud Selig be in attendance when Barry Bonds breaks Hank Aaron’s homerun record?
• How many home runs would Hank Aaron have hit in Barry Bonds’ era?

In the wake of the deadly tiger attacks on three young men at the San Francisco Zoo, a PR guy was hired to manage the major crisis.

What began as a buttoned up story in which no one with any credibility was saying anything of substance (although that didn’t stop the rest of San Francisco from buzzing about it) spilled out into the public yesterday as representation for both the victims and the Zoo exchanged words via the media.

Says the boys’ attorney, Mark Geragos:

“They were out there for 30 to 35 minutes and nobody takes them seriously - especially when there was blood. It’s incredible.”

“The security guard did virtually nothing. Here Kulbir is bleeding all over.“

“They say they were acting crazy. … I don’t know how one is supposed to act after being attacked by a tiger.“

Says SF Zoo spokesman Sam Singer:

It’s “highly unusual that (Geragos) is the only person who has the facts, when the San Francisco Police Department hasn’t even completed its investigation.”

“Anything that a defense attorney says has to be taken with not a pinch of salt, but a ton of salt.”

And ohbytheway — PETA wants everyone to remain calm…and shut down their tiger exhibits

Oh yeah, this story isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. Stay tuned…

whereIstand Tags

• SanFranciscoChronicle
• PETA