"Media Reporting" Is A Joke Sometimes
Meanwhile, this week in recipes is a Louisiana recipe that is better than Popeye's version.
I get really frustrated at a lot of the people whose job is to be a “media reporter” - as in, their job is to report on the goings-on in media.
This particular field of journalism used to be pretty fun to watch. There was a pretty good section of Politico, the “On Media” blog, that followed reporters, anchors, and other key media figures moving out of or into other outlets, as well as following drama inside of newsrooms.
It was a bit incestuous, mind you, having the media report on the media and glossing over some of the more aggravating things reporters and outlets were getting away with in the name of activism masked as journalism. But to understand the industry behind our mainstream journalism was of interest to me, and I followed it pretty regularly.
Like all things, though, something changed over the last few years. “Media reporters” are now just political reporters, but targeting outlets they don’t like over stories they disagree with. Mediaite, for example, tends to target right-wing sites and commentators more often than not, though in the world of media reporting they are better at hitting both sides than most.
CNN, however, is a place that is just absolutely toxic.
I was blocked by CNN’s Oliver Darcy on Twitter after writing a piece critical of his attempt to attack Fox New’s Bret Baier. In it, I said the following about Darcy and CNN’s chief media reporter, Brian Stelter.
Maybe Darcy is doing this out of jealousy? CNN had incredible growth in April’s ratings, upwards of 150% in viewership, but it still wasn’t enough to top shows like Baier’s. CNN just can’t seem to top it, and since Darcy works for CNN, that’s what he has to do. Attack Fox News.
Can you imagine that being your job? Spend all day watching a network you hate and tweet about it, with the occasional television hit reminding you that focusing on them is your job and you hate them? It doesn’t seem all that great for one’s mental health, but that is almost entirely what Darcy, Stelter, and the gang are reduced to.
Whether you like them or not, Fox News tends to have (in some cases much) higher ratings than shows on CNN and MSNBC. They appeal to more people and tend to not treat American voters like idiots. While I can’t stand their commentary hosts like Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity, it is undeniable that guys like Chris Wallace and Bret Baier do a really good job as straight-news guys.
Contrast that with Stelter, who is willing to ignore over a dozen calls from progressive commentators to not have presidential debates in order to say that anyone talking about it is responding to Fox News talking points rather than reality.
It’s absolutely absurd. A colleague at RedState wrote up the exchange Stelter had with Guy Benson and it’s worth noting that Stelter, being so very Stelter, had to backtrack without actually backtracking.
If Stelter were an honest journalist, he would be noting in his newsletter the rise in rhetoric from multiple media outlets calling for no presidential debates. However, he’s not an honest journalist. He is a PR flack for CNN and his job is to watch Fox News and other right-leaning outlets and pundits all day and report on things they do he that he disagrees with.
It’s not objective journalism. It’s defending the castle.
At one point, Darcy and Stelter were decent journalists. Like with everything else in the modern era, increased polarization in our political world has made people and things so much more unbearable. Anyone whose focus is on media reporting is doing the job from a biased, political perspective and not through an objective lens focused on the industry. Like so many other elements of national journalism, it’s disappointing and would be better off disappearing.
The Fight For Biden’s Running Mate
Back in May, the Biden campaign announced that the former Vice President would be naming his own vice presidential candidate “around August 1” — a date that came and went over the weekend.
The campaign has now told reporters that the pick will likely come in the second week of August, making this possibly one of the fastest broken campaign promises in American history (I’m not sure on that, because there’s been a lot of history in the two hundred years we have collectively experienced since March of 2020). The Biden campaign’s holdup appears to be centered around what Biden wants and what people who aren’t Biden want.
As of Friday, it appeared that there were really two candidates – Kamala Harris and Susan Rice — though Nancy Pelosi has been privately pushing Rep. Karen Bass, it appears her star dimmed quickly. However, what is interesting is that between people pushing Bass and people pushing Rice, the only agreement anyone has is that anyone who isn’t Joe Biden doesn’t want Kamala Harris.
That in and of itself is a sign that the Biden camp is unsure of how it should position itself in this election and how it should approach Biden’s role as President should he win.
Rice served as National Security Adviser for Barack Obama, the same administration that Biden served as Vice President. Bass, meanwhile, is a longtime progressive California politician and ally of Nancy Pelosi. Each pick has its own “establishment” feel to it. Rice would be a likely choice to “carry on” Obama’s legacy as Biden’s successor, while Bass would be a means for Pelosi to continue to shape party policy through the White House.
Harris, it seems, does not represent the Democratic Party’s establishment — or they don’t think she does, at any rate. At the same time, progressive activists soundly rejected her in the primaries and most of her support fled for Biden and more “moderate” (inasmuch as they can be) candidates. If the running mate’s job was to shore up votes among the ultra-progressive, they could surely find someone better than her. Luckily for her, the running mate is never really a person who will get more votes out.
But the job of the running mate has historically been to shore up support among the party’s leaders. If the party’s establishment wanted to get the ultra-progressive politicians on board, they would offer up someone that the other side could agree to support. But if Pelosi and other old voices in the party are trying to get Bass or Rice on the ticket, then that means something a bit more troublesome is brewing within the party.
It’s no secret that the Democratic Party has been struggling with its own version of “tea party” insurgency. The rise of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others has proven to be a pain, and they have had to capitulate to them on numerous occasions to try and keep them in line (and often not really succeeded in doing so). While one could argue that Harris is a happy medium for both sides, the fact that Pelosi and the rest of the Party’s leadership are pushing their own people (those they deem “safer”) indicates that they don’t want to make concessions to the ultra-progressives and instead want to neuter them.
What makes the Harris situation stranger is that Biden himself is said to be the primary advocate for her, and he is certainly not someone you could really count among the ultra-progressive wing of the party. He is treating the pick in a more old-school way, though. He is looking for a politician who has “paid their dues” and has won elections. He wants a strong candidate beside him, a desire that is probably fueled in part by his struggles in public speaking as of late. He needs a strong surrogate on the campaign trail.
What we don’t know is whether Rice or Bass could be that surrogate for him. Based on past performance, we know Harris will be.
It is going to be a battle of wills to see who ultimately controls the ticket, and that appears to be the reason for the delay in naming a running mate. If they have pushed the choice back two weeks, it means that they aren’t quite there yet. Though they are running out of time.
Recipe of the Week: Dirty Rice
Depending on how much rice and meat you cook, this can be a very hearty standalone meal. Other times, it can be a great side dish. Most importantly, if you do it right, it’s way better than the Popeye’s version.
2 cups rice
2 cups Trinity (chopped onions, celery, and bell pepper)
2 tsp. minced garlic
1/2 cup flour
1 to 1 1/2 lbs. ground beef and/or pork
2 cups chicken or beef stock
Brown the meat in batches over medium-high heat, draining as you go. Remember that draining in small batches allows the meat to crisp up rather than boil in the rendered fat and cooked out moisture.
Re-add about 1/2 to 3/4 cup of the drained fat to the pan, turning it to medium heat. If you had leaner beef, add cooking oil (like vegetable oil) to the pan.
Add the flour by sprinkling it in a little bit at a time. If you recall my gravy recipe, then you’re basically doing that here: making a roux-based gravy. Keep stirring the flour and oil together to make the roux. Get it as dark as you want it to be.
As soon as the roux gets the color you want, add your trinity and take it off the heat. Keep stirring the vegetables around. The roux will be hot enough that it will efficiently cook the vegetables.
Add the stock little bits at a time and mix it in well. You’ll notice the roux getting lumpy and thick, but keep stirring and adding the stock and it will thin back out.
Add the meat to the gravy, stirring to completely mix it together.
Cook your two cups of rice (I use a rice cooker and usually start it before making the roux) and when it’s ready, add it to the meat and gravy.
Serve the rice alongside the Natchitoches meat pies you should have already made.
Final Thoughts
This is a tweet I agree with.
That is all.