I got an email from blog regular Barry this morning:
another very disappointing thing to see (Boston)
Watching TV media folks (Savannah Guthrie on The Today Show a few mins ago for one) asking terrorism experts to speculate “what does your gut tell you?” in questions regarding who is responsible for the attack. (BTW – Savannah is also an attorney)
The expert this morning told Savannah ” I don’t speculate and I don’t go off my gut. I am trained to look for evidence and go where the evidence takes me.” – a great answer to a really sorry question.
How pitiful – asking someone to speculate on such a tragedy – and I suspect she asked it so that will have something to jump on him if his speculation or “gut” feeling isn’t correct. Sick of seeing that type of questioning from media folks.
My answer was to say that I don’t have the highest opinion of 24/7 cable TV “news” to begin with. But I think it’s off-base to speculate that “so that will have something to jump on him if his speculation or ‘gut’ feeling isn’t correct.”
Questions like that arise from the very nature of 24/7 TV “news.” They have to keep talking, throughout the long hours when nothing is known. So inevitably, just to have something new to talk about, they get into speculation. And yeah, eventually the talk itself becomes the topic, and a misstatement by an official could become the latest thing to talk about.
It’s not good. But it’s not nefarious.
What it is is an argument for the old way of doing news — once a day, which gave you a chance to pull things together and think about what you were presenting to the world, whatever your medium.
But we’ll never get that toothpaste back into the tube.
And just so you don’t think I’m just picking on broadcast, note the above headline from the New York Post from yesterday afternoon. I mentioned it on my blog yesterday, even having that number in a headline briefly (but cautiously attributing it to a “report”).
Related Posts
Barry later added:
Brad I know you long for the good old days but I’m afraid on this there really was no good old days. The New York Post is a print newspaper, part of the OLD way of doing things. And, Savannah Guthrie works for NBC, an outfit dating to the 1930s, not one of the cable news channels. The Today Show first aired in 1952. Besides big stories like this haven’t been a one-a-day news event since at least the time radio first appeared in the 1920s. And even before that newspapers issues Extras. Take a look at some of the first accounts of the Titanic sinking. Lots of speculation there.
Actually, nothing I said indicated that I long for the old days. I was simply saying that this was a problem you didn’t have then. It’s a tradeoff for immediacy.
I’m pretty sure that the NYPost this morning didn’t have that headline on it. That’s from the website, which is print’s version of 24/7 TV.
I’ll acknowledge that I didn’t focus on the fact that that was the “Today” show. But I submit that in a world in which 24/7 coverage exists, even a once-a-day show such as “Today” is under greater pressure, every second of the show, to come up with something you haven’t heard yet. Which encourages speculation.
It was Colonel Mustard, with the candlestick, in the conservatory!
How about this for some good ole counterproductive, GOP speculation. From Huffpo:
“The Boston Marathon bombings show that immigration reform could endanger the public, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said Tuesday, speculating that the attack might have been perpetrated by an immigrant. In fact, law enforcement authorities have not named any suspect so far.
“Some of the speculation that has come out is that, yes, it was a foreign national and, speculating here, that it was potentially a person on a student visa,” King said to the National Review’s Robert Costa. “If that’s the case, then we need to take a look at the big picture.”
Ok senator what if was a 7th generation American citizen whose great, great, great, great, great grandparents came over from England in the 1820s who happened to be a Tea Party Republican who was trying to make a statement about income taxes. Would that qualify under this “big picture”. Sheesh, lets get some information before we start politicizing this. As Joe Friday would say, “just the facts sir, just the facts”.
Print is supposed to get it right, but the New York Post is a tabloid rag, most of the time!
I eschew 24/7 news because so much is rehash, filler and pointless speculating, much, if not most, wrong. I did appreciate the careful reporting on the Reuters blog, though.
I eschewed once, someone God blessed me.
I thought the BBC did fairly well, also. I wasn’t able to keep up with every update, but most of them were of the “We’ve been told…” variety, with no speculation on the responsible party.
Part of talking for a living is knowing when to shut up.
Anyone want to speculate on what Mark Sanford was doing in Jenny’s house without her permission?
Wow. Not entirely sure where that fits in with the “he deserves a second chance” narrative.
Sure, Suan. Two things come to mind: This is when divorces get stupid and not just ugly. We don’t know (and shouldn’t care) what the circumstances of his presence were. And, two, If Jenny still wants to convince us all that she is the grown up who was wronged, she should act like a grown up.
From The State’s sketch of a story, I see no reason for any of us to care. Sounds like the two of them could/should have a conversation and reach some understanding – on the phone not in court. Court is for people who have real problems and issues, not some “concerns” – or probably, manipulations. Life is too short for this kind of gamesmanship nonsense.
Mark, I agree. I was just poking fun at the probability that the media (and others) will probably spend a fair amount of air/print time speculating about this as well, with nothing actually valuable to say.
If he loses the election, maybe he’ll show up at the House anyway.
Are you sure he was in the house, and not in the doghouse? ba-dum-ching!
Thank you folks, I’ll be here all week….Try the veal!
Mark, according to the Charleston Post and Courier, Mrs. Sanford was surprised that the court hearing became public. She thought it was supposed to be kept out of the news. It also stated that Mr. Sanford had trespassed several times, and that she had talked to him before, and warned him to stay off of her property. What’s she supposed to do when he won’t behave like an adult, and comply with the divorce orders which require that they stay off of each other’s personal property.
Karen,
I don’t necessarily buy the story as presented. I am not that gullible. In fact, I am a little world weary about the inevitable fall-out from divorce psych-dramas. It may be exactly as the story reported (although it sounds a lot like one side of the story provided all of the information to the writer). He may well have trespassed. On the other hand, I would also not be at all surprised if the situation actually turned out to be far more complex and far less nefarious. Mostly, I would bet that what we have here are two people unmoored by divorce each seeing and living the “reality” that they can see with no ability to square up these two different visions of what is what because there is no functional and sympathetic communication between them – and yet they are supposed to jointly care for their children and must be around one another.
My first question would be were any of the children home at the time? If no one was at Jenny’s house and he let himself in (which would be my second question as to how he did that), then I would find it easier to fault him. However, if he had been with the kids, or if he was there to visit with at least one of the kids, then my interest in pillorying him would just about crater.
Jenny says he was “caught” exiting the back door using his cell phone flashlight. Or was he actually on the phone as he was leaving and she just saw the glow? I don’t know. All I know is that this is just another example of why divorce sucks. We see it all the time. What we don’t see are the ways that divorce can also be healthier. And I’m cognizant of that, too, I think. But mostly I am just weary whenever a divorce drama emerges.
Friday night and the lights are low
Jenny’s house is the place to go
Hanging out in the garden, over by the swing
Mark comes around trespassing
Anybody could be that guy
Night is young and the music’s high
With a light from his cellphone, everything is fine
He’s in the mood for a glance
And when he got the chance
Marshall is trespassing
Bad idea when you’re campaigning
Trespassing
Feel the heat from the court hearing, oh yeah
Mark can talk, he can jive
Having the time of his life
See the kids through the screen
Mark Sanford is trespassing!
Thread winner.
Mark Sanford’s life continues to be like an ABBA song parody.
Hey, y’all. Sorry to be slow on the uptake, but I’ve put up a separate post on the “trespassing” allegation, if anyone still wants to discuss it…
You just pulled the uber thread-jack…
I’m the man.
Sounds like this story is as pathetically personal as it appeared. Who is hurt here are the kids. Both of them should keep that in mind. So should we.