|
"more coverage with less coverage". . .hee hee
Sure, appealing to the baser instincts seems to sell pretty well.
But again, I think the press usually works harder at breaking down and forcing stories that reflect their hopes or at least their version of how things work.
When the Plame affair could be sold as administrative officials compromising the safety of a CIA agent out of revenge because of her husbands expose, well it was Plame all the time. Remember "Fitzmas"? Remember the pictures in Vanity Fair, for the most part a celebrity magazine?
But as the actual source of information came out, and the story wound down to a perjury case about facts not that (seemingly) important to the most of the initial scandal, well, that's not really worth following up on.
It doesn't seem to matter that by most indicators she wasn't a covert operative (you know the jurors aren't even supposed to consider that issue?) and that how and why Wilson was selected for the mission is kind of newsworthy if you think about it. Not to mention the fact that the source of the particular"leak" pretty conclusively wasn't anyone IDed in the first batch of stories.
As my version of the news story indicates, we tend latch on to the facts that reinforce what we expect to be true, and downplay or ignore stories that really challenge us.
The difference is I'm not a member of the media trying to sell the idea that I'm objective or bound by a higher standard of ethics.
How 'bout we talk about the Duke (non) rape case coverage? Not Grace's finest hour, there.
|
Threaded Mode
