I'm torn, so I'm just going to skip across the territory I woke up to on CNN this morning.
I awoke to CNN's On the Story, a panel discussion in front of a live audience in the CNN studio, about the way the news covers the news.
Totally meta: That I watch them looking at themselves; at the way the news we eat today is changing and how the method itself is changing as fast as the news; at the way the method becomes the news; at the impossibity of changing the reporting of the news as fast as the news changes.
There was a fascinating exchange on whether the media got it wrong on West Virgina's Sago Mine story. I remember one poor woman's statement, "We had a miracle and they took it away." Did they have a miracle or did they have a lie? Or was it a miscommunication or a misperception? What is the difference, and how close are any of these things to truth? I didn't hear the word LIE mentioned in that discussion, so was there a lie? I know what I want to believe: They got a lot of media coverage but they didn't get enough help. Period.
I don't claim to know the answer and can only hearken back to my dad's sage advice to believe nothing you hear and very little of what you see.
An articulate grey haired blogger (Jeff James?? Sorry, again I was just waking up) participated in the discussion on webcam. They told what they heard from the people who were there. They got the scoop as it unfolded and it kept unfolding. What could they have done different? The blogger insightfully noted that soon we will require and accept reporting on what might be and what's going to happen.
Then straight from that, to a comment on the way that this story and Ariel Sharon's story have eclipsed the Abramoff story. Ed Henry insists that Democrats did get money from Abramoff and he couldn't find anyone to confirm it. Was it a slip? Was he lying? Was it a miracle? I haven't heard any specific links of that specific thing.
Maybe they did.
Maybe not.
I know what I want to believe and it's that people are sometimes corrupt and a lot of them cleave to what today we call the republican party. How far is that from what's true?
They poll the seated live audience on the question, "Is corruption rampant in Washington?"
It looks like everybody raises their hand from the camera angle I view, but the host says "What's that look like? About 70%?" Another poll is posted which, in contrast, yields, 49% say Congress is crooked and 48% say Congress is not. What do you make of that?
I make of that: two completely different questions, the latter including only one branch of government, the former including all three, plus the lobbyists.
And finally,
The ABA recommends Alito? Why on earth did the ABA do that?
Armando?
Okay, I'd better go for coffee. Tear it up.