Media Storm…

Mediaite’s Joe Concha writes about cable news’ hyperventilating coverage of the standoff in Oregon.

In other words, our armed militia means no harm unless the law does its job and takes the building it, you know, owns back. Pretty ominous stuff. And methinks the leader of the Crips or Hell’s Angels wouldn’t be afforded the same courtesy regarding media coverage if it took over a federal building. Yet here we are on the first busy day of the new year with wall-to-wall coverage of the standoff around a federal building in the Malheur Wildlife Refuge — a remote facility in the Oregon high desert … all as Ammon Bundy, gang spokesman, is granted more interviews on virtually every national television network and therefore a platform to share what his perspective to millions.

And we’re not just talking NBC, but ABC, CBS, CNN, the Associated Press, local media … you name it (adding: Fox Monday night on The Kelly File). Ammon Bundy — the son of the infamous Cliven Bundy who dominated the news cycle for weeks in April and May of 2014 during a standoff then — has now taken the Donald Trump mantle of media domination and will likely continue to until this standoff is over. Note: Bundy has declared the group “will stay for years” if it has to, meaning this could unfortunately end under not-so-peaceful terms. It also means the story will have legs — particularly in the cable news world — which was practically invented for this kind of scenario.

Indeed. It’s one thing to cover pacific northwest skirmishes with the Feds over a variety of issues, issues which are genuine policy questions. FNC was the only network to really cover the Klamath Basin water fight over a decade ago. That was a real issue that affected lives.

This was too. But it’s not really the issue that’s being covered now. What’s being covered is the standoff. For decades news has loved to cover standoffs with a voraciousness not justified. This kind of coverage grants a kind of legitimacy to something which has no business being legitimate since it is in fact illegal.


One Response to “Media Storm…”

  1. “What’s being covered is the standoff. For decades news has loved to cover standoffs with a voraciousness not justified.”

    ^^I’m actually kind of surprised the coverage hasn’t been more saturated. After a day or so of heavy coverage it’s pretty much dropped off the map. As well, most of the coverage appears to be mocking rather than outrage which is never a good thing for a protest movement, armed or not.

    These bozos seemed to have made a number of rookie mistakes; the most egregious being occupying a building far away from civilization where the occupiers can be easily isolated from their lifeblood, the media, if that becomes necessary.

    They have few supplies, little support from other like-minded groups, right wing politicians and the usually friendly media suspects (like FNC); poor spokespeople and no plan of what they want to accomplish or how they hope to get there.

    In a week or so, after the power and cell service is cut off and their few supplies have run out they will abandon the protest and leave. The feds are, rightfully IMO, calling them as terrorists so hopefully they will eventually be arrested and prosecuted.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: