Oh no, Ms Ifill…
PBS’ Gwen Ifill is annoyed.
Some ‘person’ is questioning her right to rule over the peasants.
This ‘person’, who Ms Ifill refuses to call by name, is Prof. Jay Rosen of NY University.
He wrote a piece in The Washington Post suggesting that it was time to ditch old time Washington insiders like Ms. Ifill because, essentially, they are Washington insiders and its always the same old, same old.
The temerity!
Who is this ‘person’? Ms Ifill wants to know. Who is this ‘person’ on the ‘Internet’ that has the sheer chutzpah to say such things?
The professor, who apparently also functions as a self-appointed media critic, was one of a dozen folks asked to contribute to the Post’s Outlook section for a special “spring cleaning†feature about things they would toss out.
Yes. “Self-appointed media critic”. The nerve! Ms Ifill knows all about the ‘dangers’ of the web and all those ‘self-appointed’ people.
My first instinct was to ignore it. Fighting against blogs is a lot like trying to stop oil escaping from a blowout preventer – it can go on forever. Hitting that “send†key can get you in deep.
So let’s not hit that ‘send’ key. Let us not get down in the dirt with the peasants on the internet. Oh no. That is not real journalism. Real journalism takes place here, in Versailles, amongst my good friends. Ms Ifill, who cannot even bring herself to type the name Jay Rosen (the Professor) has no problem throwing around the names of all her ‘good friends’, some of whom even deign to occasionally grovel in ‘blogland’
The replies ran the gamut from Bush adviser Karl Rove, who hates exit polls, to my friend Donna Brazile, who hates (but practices) punditry, to actor Ed Begley, who thinks we shouldn’t be wasting so much water keeping our lawns green.
Yes, my good friend Ed Begley. Well, it’s fine to use the internet to talk about watering your lawn, I suppose, but this ‘professor’ took it one step too far…
Then, to my alarm, I saw that the media critic had decided to lob a broadside against “Washington Week.” The premise of the show, he argued, is exhausted. The panelists and the moderator, he conceded, are good at what we do, but are just too darned cozy with the people we cover.
Now that is funny, (as my good friend Donna Brazile said to me only yesterday).
What really annoys Ms. Ifill is that suddenly the web has made it possible for mere peasants like Prof Jay Rosen to have an equal footing with the nobility of the journalism world. She has no problem with people ‘commenting’ so long as they are also nobles.
She says so herself:
I defend anybody’s right to comment on the news of the day – whether it is Chris Matthews or Bill O’Reilly or Larry King or Jon Stewart. I even defend the NYU professor, however misguided he might be.
Yes, she DEFENDS ANYBODY’S RIGHT TO COMMENT.. so long as they are Larry King or Chris Matthews or even Jon Stewart for crying out loud. (He’s on Comedy Central!!). So long as you know their name and they have their own TV show. But let some pipsqueak ‘Professor’ from NYU take a shot and all hell breaks loose. What is the world coming to?
In the 18th Century, when Denis Diderot was about to publish the world’s first Encyclopedia, the French Nobility were up in arms. “What will happen when every peasant knows how to build a mill” they asked. “They will become educated and leave the land they work for us”.
Yes, the printing press was a bitch. And so is the web.
Suddenly everyone has a voice.
And people like Ms Ifill the old Nobility of Journalism, who sat in their castles in PBS land safe from the rabble, are suddenly finding the rabble not only at their door but in their courtyards. Shocking! By what right? Who appointed? She answers it herself – ‘the self-appointed’ media critic. Not like her old pals Chris Matthews and Larry King. By what right?
Get used to it Gwen. It’s all over.
The Revolution has arrived.
I can even hear them dragging the guillotine down M Street.
And good thing too.
Jay Rosen is right.
Your show is a snore.
Too many of your friends.
14 Comments
Anonymous September 29, 2013
So the debate right now isn’t about whether we need to make tough choices. Democrats and Republicans agree on the amount of deficit reduction we need. The debate is about how it should be done. Most Americans, regardless of political party, don’t understand how we can ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before we ask corporate jet owners and oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don’t get. How can we ask a student to pay more for college before we ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries? How can we slash funding for education and clean energy before we ask people like me to give up tax breaks we don’t need and didn’t ask for?
[url=http://www.brandteamjapanese.com]
Pingback: Headlamp Pictures » Let’s Put the ‘Public’ back in Public Broadcasting
Trent Coleman May 27, 2010
If only I had a dollar for every time I came to https://www.rosenblumtv.com... Superb writing!
Michael Rosenblum May 20, 2010
TRENT GILLIS WRITES:
I wish this conversation would be a tad more civil sometimes but, as I heard Virginia Mollenkott once say, “Every revolution needs its flagrant fringe.â€
I work for a public radio program (Speaking of Faith) trying to build relationships with listeners and readers — and bringing them back into the conversation as content responders, idea generators, critics, and especially as fresh voices for our traditional broadcast medium. It’s taken patience and work but it’s been a continuing learning experience for veteran journalists and non-traditional journalists on our staff. In the end, after all the theory and debate subside, I can’t help but be bolstered by all the interesting people I get to meet and correspond with each day — both famous and most often not so much.
I mean I’ve worked a boatload of jobs in my life and feel truly privileged to do this work. Call it journalism or conversation or engagement or whatever you like, but it’s remembering that we’re working with and for people. And somehow I sense this emphasis on connecting with people gets lost in the conversations within the newsroom or blogging den or television set. As these necessary debates take place, I hope we can remember why we’re fighting for a larger inclusion of voice in reporting and media.
Also, a question: as we speak about the old guard, the elite group of insiders and newspersons within the Beltway or in the journalism business altogether, do you sense that this same thing is happening with the “digerati†for lack of a better descriptor? Do the advocates of a new type of journalism get so loud and so critical that they drown out the voices of the masses that they’re fighting for? In other words, are they creating their own group of insiders that might be dominating the discussion without even knowing it?
Thanks for the forum and putting your ideas out there.
FOR SOME REASON, WORDPRESS DOES NOT LIKE YOUR POSTING, SO I AM PUTTING IT UP THIS WAY. GO FIGURE
David Martin May 19, 2010
Bravos, Michael. A cogent argument. My thought is Ms Ifill suffers from a genetic blindness, she seems intellectually hardwired, captive to a dogma past its best used by date. Moreover, the job she signed up for is increasingly irrelevant. She appears to long for days when the important conversations were confined to the comfort of closed sets involving the usual suspects. A time when the conversations that mattered were exclusive, among and between only the extended family of bold-faced names also working for the major news organizations (or at least recognized in the largest media markets)and occasionally those celebrated in the moment (e.g., best-selling authors, subject matter gurus, et al). To embrace the notion of a new commons, to listen to and consider the studied thought of a serious member of the academy may require a radical shift in principles from one of exclusion to one of inclusion. Perhaps key to her failing is the dated broadcaster mindset, deep religious belief in the one to many model, faith placed first – and too often only – in the judgments of peers. “It’s leaving here fine.” She may also be an anachronism, the African American woman granted admission to the world of media elite based more upon timing than talent. While it is true that federal intervention in hiring practices(EEO)encouraged the entry level hiring and promotion of recent generations of women and minorities in broadcasting it remains a numbers game. Those opportunities regulatory wrought produced the blessing of some exceptionally gifted talent. As Barbara Walters has openly admitted being a woman was once a great advantage at least in breaking into a business dominated by white males. Ms Ifill’s tone deafness aside, one must wonder what her superiors are thinking. My sense is what we have here is a serious leadership problem one involving a massive failure of imagination. Thanks for the use of the hall, Michael. Keep up the good work!
Trent Gilliss May 19, 2010
I wish this conversation would be a tad more civil sometimes but, as I heard Virginia Mollenkott once say, “Every revolution needs its flagrant fringe.”
I work for a public radio program (Speaking of Faith) trying to build relationships with listeners and readers — and bringing them back into the conversation as content responders, idea generators, critics, and especially as fresh voices for our traditional broadcast medium. It’s taken patience and work but it’s been a continuing learning experience for veteran journalists and non-traditional journalists on our staff. In the end, after all the theory and debate subside, I can’t help but be bolstered by all the interesting people I get to meet and correspond with each day — both famous and most often not so much.
I mean I’ve worked a boatload of jobs in my life and feel truly privileged to do this work. Call it journalism or conversation or engagement or whatever you like, but it’s remembering that we’re working with and for people. And somehow I sense this emphasis on connecting with people gets lost in the conversations within the newsroom or blogging den or television set. As these necessary debates take place, I hope we can remember why we’re fighting for a larger inclusion of voice in reporting and media.
Also, a question: as we speak about the old guard, the elite group of insiders and newspersons within the Beltway or in the journalism business altogether, do you sense that this same thing is happening with the “digerati” for lack of a better descriptor? Do the advocates of a new type of journalism get so loud and so critical that they drown out the voices of the masses that they’re fighting for? In other words, are they creating their own group of insiders that might be dominating the discussion without even knowing it?
Thanks for the forum and putting your ideas out there.
fosca May 19, 2010
chrchrchrchrharharhar i am having a real laugh on todays publication i must admit. i also admit that this insight show is boring. it is a couple of specialized, professional talking heads that get absolutely nowhere in their bubble-babble conversation. just like over here, filling broadcast time with meaningless toss. very boring. i rather stick to democracynow.org. bad style is what ms.ifill uses in not naming the author of the text she critizises. having had a look at half of one of the archived shows i have a pretty good idea how “washington week” saved that marriage ms.ifill mentiones in her text. the couple probably switched off their idiots-lantern, went to bed and shagged the despairing boredom out of each other. hail the saviour.
Michael Rosenblum May 19, 2010
Yes. Exactly my thinking Eric. And, let’s not forget that WE pay for Gwen’s salary and for the blog site as well. She works for us.
Eric Blumer May 19, 2010
One more line… Dan wrote “It is a calm, measure discussion between people who know what their talking about.”
This is exactly what’s at question.
Who is to say that only Washington insiders “know what they are talking about?” Who is to say PBS is the only place to get the “right” information?
Who is to say Gwen “deserves” a paid job telling the people about the direction of the country? Who is to say the internet and bloggers are uninformed? etc… etc… That is the core of the debate, I think.
Eric Blumer May 19, 2010
Entertaining post.
Dan, I didn’t read Michael’s post as being a critique of the “style” of the program, nor even as a critique of the “content” of the program. Yes, he did say it was a snore at the end… But that’s a true “generalization” of PBS talk shows. Of course it is a generalization, and it is subjective, but who really cares about saying a show is boring?
As for the content, that’s what is more interesting. Michael and the professor say its “her friends” and Washington “insiders.” THAT is the issue. I read his comments more as about the changing nature of the media and journalism.
Take a look at yesterday’s primary elections. Washington INSIDERS are being booted out. Arlen Spector out.
This blog post by Michael is a lot deeper than just being a critique about the boring style of Gwen’s program… It is about a movement across the country against the Washington insider “norm.”
And that includes the media. Or does it?
I think it does. I think the democratization of journalism… is starting to be seen. No longer do the major journalism “players” have a monopoly on the public thought process. That is what is happening. You are seeing the results in the elections, I think, and the ratings.
Washington power players (politicians, public relations firms, journalists, lobbyists, etc…) are at the short end of a revolt.
How big is that revolt? We don’t know yet.
How big is the media revolution… We don’t know yet. But it exists.
So don’t be “offended” by a “critique” about the quality of Gwens program. It’s probably a great program. Civil. Intellectual. But that is assuming those “outside” of Washington are not civil and not intellectual. That’s the core of this political movement…
What’s the core of the journalism revolution? Great discussion inmyopinion.
Dan Haggerty May 19, 2010
Oh my god Rosenblum!
You are so annoying.
Enough with the shouting at ivory towers routine.
There is some great work happening in Public Media and you should donate your time and resources or just move along.
Shameless self-promotion does absolutely nobody any good except your company and that is a lame reason to attack the good work that others are doing.
You guys are so lame to criticize her show as boring.
It is the antidote to all the screaming on cable television.
It is a calm, measure discussion between people who know what their talking about.
I am absolutely flabbergasted as to why guys don’t think that is worth supporting and promoting.
The attitude that I see here is the same sort of short sightedness I seen elsewhere in the country. An overly simplistic writing-off of the good work smart people are doing.
I’m here to say that I do not share your values and that I am disappointed that you would choose to pick on this program.
Michael Rosenblum May 19, 2010
Dear Dan
Unlike Gwen, who refuses to print my comments on her website, I am more than happy to print yours.
That’s what a free press is all about.
John Proffitt May 19, 2010
“The peasants are revolting!”
“Yeah, tell me about it.”
Of course the irony is she’s no journalist. Her ivory tower is the insider editorial echo chamber. That’s available to anyone that’s pleasant at Washington parties.
She’s really exposed herself here.
And I loooove the fact that the PBS site where she’s aired her greivances against the poor has a commenting limit of 500 characters. Characters, not words.
The kicker for me was that she wouldn’t deign to name Rosen or link to his piece. I guess he’s the Voldemort of journalism.
Go Jay go!
$ May 19, 2010
While I have had differences with you in the past, you are on point today.
The woman has her head firmly planted in the past.
A true dinosaur on the verge of extinction.
Good offering today.