I'm gonna faint: Howie Kurtz criticizes media’s fascination with Rove

[CatWoman]

In his column in today’s Washington Post, Howard Kurtz writes that the media have baselessly gushed over Karl Rove in order to create a “better narrative“:

But what if journalists are part of an unspoken conspiracy to inflate Rove’s importance — not for ideological reasons but because it makes for a better narrative? What if they are the architects, using well-placed aides to build a stage for inside-dope stories involving Rove and his colleagues?

Or perhaps there’s a cruder explanation: that some journalists believe Bush lacks the intellectual heft to achieve big things on his own, so they attribute his most consequential decisions to a powerful Svengali at his side.

This is not to play down Rove’s crucial role as the president’s longtime confidant and chief strategist, who indeed helped engineer his election triumphs and map a governing approach that emphasized the care and feeding of Bush’s conservative base. But was Rove’s decision to quit, 17 months before the end of Bush’s term, truly deserving of lead-story status in the New York Times, The Washington Post and the three nightly newscasts?

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/20/kurtz-criticizes-medias-fascination-with-rove/

[panader0]

1. my question: if Rove is bush's brain, and bush is the worst

president of all time, how can Rove be anything but an utter failure?

[Beetwasher]

5. Good Question!

:thumbsup:

[Beetwasher]

2. You Know What? He's STILL An Idiot!

"But what if journalists are part of an unspoken conspiracy to inflate Rove’s importance — not for ideological reasons but because it makes for a better narrative?"

Umm, and what if they were doing it FOR ideological reasons and because they're Rove's flunkies? You can't consider that, can YOU Howie, you fucking douchebag. Of course you can't, because that's why YOU do it. Nice try at misdirection, you tool.

On edit: Oops, forgot to say hello! :hi: That Howie sets me off though, he's such a sniveling weasel.

[CatWoman]

3. *smooch*

:hi:

[Beetwasher]

4. See My Edit!

lol!

[woo me with science]

6. Followed by discussion of Elizabeth Edwards as John's "attacker-in-chief"

But my favorite nugget in there is the breakdown of time spent covering the war by the various news outlets: "The level of war coverage continued to vary on the cable news..."

CNN: 18 percent of airtime

MSNBC: 15 percent of airtime

FOX: 8 percent

[TahitiNut]

7. “better narrative“??? Against what criteria? Fiction? Revisionism?

It begs the question of the criteria by which "better" is assessed. Even so, we're not talking grammar or accuracy - we're talking about the fictionalization of current events. That's not "journalism" - that's propagandizing.

[CatWoman]

8. calm down, Hon

calm down :)

:hi:

they're all a bunch of assholes :)

[Cha]

9. Let me be the first

to Recommend this earth shattering take from howie the kurtz!

I'm shocked he didn't fall in line with the rest of mediawhores! What's gotten into howard kurtz on this one?

RudePundit does the best analysis of "beelzebub".
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3461866

[CatWoman]

10. LOL, Zidzi

I "LOVE" the Rude Pundit :)

thanks :hi:

[Cha]

11. Yeah, just in case you

hadn't seen it! }(
You're Welcome, Cat :hi: