Charles Gibson should look in a mirror

[BobcatJH]

I've really gotten quite used to being lectured by the "elite media" about who I am and am not as a progressive blogger, while, at the same time, being chastised by same for being right on the most important issue facing us today - Iraq - but not being serious enough about it, as those who are constantly wrong have apparently been. By now, I'm equally used to the aforementioned card-carrying elite members of the mainstream media taking time from their busy schedules to ridicule we helpless peons for attempting to hold them to some sort of standard, to, in other words, ask them to do their jobs. With that introduction, I bring you the latest example: Charles Gibson.

This is a passage from Gibson's recent commencement address at Union College:

Know what is important news and what is not.

Keep abreast of foreign affairs, domestic politics - and we've got a fascinating election coming up - and economic affairs. Follow the issues in your local city or county council.

And, don't disparage the mainstream media. The editor of your hometown newspaper or the producers of network newscasts don't have 30 or 40 years of experience for nothing. When you see a news organization get fixated on non-stop coverage of Paris Hilton, or Anna Nicole Smith, or Michael Jackson, go elsewhere.

When an announcer says, "It's a report you have to see," you probably don't. When an anchor says, "shocking details," they probably aren't. When a reporter claims his news is "fair and balanced," it probably isn't. And, when politicians say, "I'm going to level with you," they probably won't.

Where to start? Well, I would definitely argue that, in the last cited graph, Gibson makes some great sense, especially when talking about the current state of news. His first two examples - "It's a report you have to see" and "shocking details" - have long been mainstays of local news (and now, cable news). As for the "fair and balanced" swipe, there's really no explanation needed, is there? But it's what Gibson said before this graph that requires attention. Serious, serious attention.

Said Gibson, "... don't disparage the mainstream media." Fair enough - member of the mainstream media again flinching at alleged criticism of the mainstream media - no news there, as they say. But what's implicit in Gibson's first thought is painfully explicit in his second: "The editor of your hometown newspaper or the producers of network newscasts don't have 30 or 40 years of experience for nothing." In other words, don't let me catch you punk kids trying to tell me how to do my job! I appreciate his sentiments insofar as they represent the notion that experience counts. Or should, at least. That said, when those veteran hometown newspaper editors or network newscast producers are either pushed aside in service of a bottom line-oriented ownership or - equally likely - make terrible decisions, I would argue that media criticism isn't just our right, it's our duty.

We should, as Gibson says, "go elsewhere" when news organizations fall dreadfully off-track, choosing instead to focus on trivialities. But that's not exactly the sentiment the young adults in the audience should have heard. Hell, it contradicts exactly what Gibson said just before he shifted to the news. Starting a passage with "I want all of you to be involved," Gibson touches on some of the most important issues facing us today - Iraq, immigration, health care, the environment, and so on. He then transitions into his media criticism by saying, "You need to care - for these are issues that are basic to your democracy. Participate." Am I the only one who notices the disconnect in what Gibson is saying? On the one hand, we are in serious times and it is incumbent on our youth to be good citizens, to be involved. Yet, on the other hand, his idea of involvement when it comes to a derelict media is, at best, to change the channel. How does that make sense?

Short answer: It doesn't.

The last thing a good citizen should do, Charles, is go elsewhere. There's scarcely elsewhere to go. You urge those graduating to participate, to be involved. Why not urge them to do the same thing when it involves the media? Should we "go elsewhere" when frustrated with the administration's lack of progress on the environment? Should we "go elsewhere" when we encounter government officials who refuse to end this terrible war? Should we "go elsewhere" when so many of us don't have the insurance we need? Of course we shouldn't. Matters are too important, as you yourself note, to "go elsewhere". When the one institution whose job it is to act as a check on a government run amok is failing, it becomes that much harder for citizens to become informed citizens. Your commentary admits to the shortcomings of today's media, yet your speech also warns those hearing it against pointing out those shortcomings, as though we should trust your colleagues with the task of recognizing what's wrong - and fixing it. This reminds me of the administration asking us to trust it to fix the mess in Iraq. Your profession is broken, Charles. It's too late to tell us not to repair it.

[tanyev]

1. The only reason I watch ABC Evening News is to see if and how

they will decide to cover news stories I have been following for one or two days already. STFU, Charlie.

[Arugula Latte]

2. That's what my MSM viewing has come to, also. I watch it to see what the official spin will be.

The Internet provides a slew of facts and perspectives in no time. Then the mainstream media laboriously and painfully distills it through their warped corporate filters. It's so amusing and infuriating to me to take in "the news" when I know the backstory and conveniently left out facts and circumstances behind the corporate shilling. The phoniness shines through as if illuminated by a giant stadium light.

[Bluzmann57]

3. I remember an interview Gibson did in 2004

with John Kerry. In the interview, Gibson grilled Kerry and grilled him hard. Now normally, people would say, "so what? That's the reporters job." And I would agree with that as well if Gibson would have done the same to bush. But it didn't happen that way and so I have zero respect for C. Gibson. Fairness is all the average news viewer asks for and we are not getting it. Not from Gibson anyway.

[Submariner]

7. I remember that

Charles (the draft dodging chickenhawk coward) Gibson disputed John (Vietnam combat veteran) Kerry about what medals and/or ribbons were thrown over the WH fence during an anti-war rally.

I have not watched ABC "Since".

[Bravo Zulu]

8. same here

I watched that interview and it was so biased against Kerry that I do not watch abc network at all, they are a shill for the pukes, by the way tweety did the same thing too Howard Dean!

[gratuitous]

4. Thank you, Mr. Gibson

But whyizzit, when a politician on one of your programs says "I'm going to level with you" to the interviewer, not one goddam person in your entire network will say to that politician after he concludes his comments, "You know, Senator? That's a load of malarkey and you know it."

Because until I see just a smidgen of that sort of thing, all I can conclude is that you and your network co-workers are nothing more than enablers and sycophants, more interested in access and the social opportunities your job provides, than in doing anything that any outside observer would recognize as "getting involved."

[otohara]

5. He Offers Many Mini Lectures When Reading The News

I don't give a shit what Charlie AKA Charles Gibson thinks!
STFU and read the news!
I switched back to Brian Williams.

[PCIntern]

6. Frying Pan into the Fire Dept.

Sanctimonious Brian...he sucked when he was here in Philly years ago, and he still sucks.

Can't say it any simpler than that...they laughed him out of here...pompous effete asshole.

but you're right...he is better than old down-home Charlie...or perky Katie!