UPDATED 2/4/11 12:33 PM
Looks like I’m not the only person with this opinion. This article in The Atlantic has nice links to The Village Voice, Fast Company, and Politico articles about this…
****
The Daily, Rupert Murdoch’s new venture into iPad-only right-wing media, is only two days old. But it’s already living up to its self-proclaimed standard of a “new kind” of journalism. Because let’s face it: a traditional media outlet would never TOUCH this.
Lovingly slugged ”news-gabby-ipad-1″ by iPad salesjournalist Elizabeth Saab (say hi!), the piece would be the worst kind of fluff-product-placement-ad-masquerading-as-a-news-item even if had involved a less-disabled celebrity or politician. But Gabrielle Giffords? This is a new low.
The video will give you a little insight into just how classless this is:
But make sure you check out the story as well.
From the “clever” headline to the cover treatment that makes you think you are going to read something human, it’s hard to imagine that what’s coming is being told it’s “worth investing in” an iPad by America’s favorite maimed Congresswoman:
But that is precisely what this dreck delivers. And let’s be real: who would look at the story if it was honestly headlined? You need only see the first sentence to understand:
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is doing “rigorous” speech therapy every day and her recovery is progressing — and her days also have included use of her favorite gadget: the iPad. (my emphasis)
The concept of journalistic ethics does seem quaint here – obvious corporate interests mean shameless product plugs framed as a news stories; lack of heart makes respecting a woman who could not even protest her use as spokeswoman here not even a thought. Perhaps this is the future.
Hopefully the traditional media has the balls to call out Murdoch and The Daily on this one. I’m not holding my breath.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by bad person club, Has-never-been. Has-never-been said: #TheDaily: iPads Rock, Even After You Get Shot In The Head! Murdoch Shamelessly Pimps Giffords: http://t.co/7OXmXnp cc @Daily @elizabethsaab [...]
Your blog post is confusing and appears to have almost no basis in reality. I’ve been checking out The Daily for the last 2 days and shares no resemblance with any “new venture into iPad-only right-wing media.”
I’m a political moderate and have no interest in overly slanted news stories so I wouldn’t read The Daily if I detected any (obviously opinion pages are opinion pages). Even the Gabby story was actually well done and made sense given that we seem to understand that some of her physical therapy (probably a very minor part, but we simply don’t know much) is being done with the aid of her iPad. She appears to be a fan of the iPad, and The Daily is more of a mixture of newsy life-human interest stories than anything particularly opinionated.
Really it’s your post that is shameless and mean spirited but you are probably to orthodox and stuck in your ways to ever realize it now.
I’m not the only person making this observation, there are stories at Village Voice, Fast Company, and sure to be more. From a journalism point of view, framing an ad as “news” isn’t done, period. If you can wade through the obvious self-interest to The Daily here, I can’t help.
I’m of the opinion that using Giffords this way is tasteless. You are welcome to have the opposing opinion… unlike you I won’t insult you for it.
As far as politics, most of The Daily’s content is coming from Murdoch’s right-wing properties, namely The New York Post, Wall Street Journal, and Fox News. I linked to that opinion piece only to show it’s the same old stuff, repackaged. So you just don’t know (or care) what the legacy of Murdoch’s publishing history (and his stated goals) are. Fine… he’s counting on many more like you. With Apple’s help (The Daily and WSJ are the only pubs ALLOWED to charge by subscription on iTunes!), he will obviously take pains to make it look “centrist.” But it is lipstick on a pig, whether you are smart enough to see it or not.
Peace.
Oh goodness The Village Voice… really would one expect them to say anything good about The Daily? Actually would one expect them to day anything decent or rational about anything that didn’t form in lock-step with their (and your) orthodoxy?
Look, I’m guessing this is what folks like you probably just don’t get. You all look the same to most of us. Whether it’s the extremes of either side (right or left), the more extreme you each get, the closer together you become in the continuum. Dramatics, hyperbole, extreme use of language, portraying each sides more moderate (oh no, Obama/McCain is gonna getcha!) candidates as being unholy vehicles of death and destruction.. you are far more like Fox News than you will ever realize.
Look, I almost feel bad for you, you probably think you are more intelligent and rational than most of your “enemies” on the other side. What a blow to the ego it would be if you realized that you are no better (and no worse either if that helps) than them. You are the same, you prey on the weak-minded, telling them what they already want to hear or read, never challenging their beliefs with new ideas.
This is the first time I’ve ever visited this site and I can demonstrate almost complete mastery of what you already believe without you telling me anything else. I can already tell you where you stand on almost every issue of the day. Gun control, abortion, Israel, Health-care, Affirmative action, race relations, the state of American media, legalization of drugs, prostitution, the bank bailouts and housing foreclosures, the list goes on and on. I already know where you stand and what you think you would do.
Yet you keep talking. But it takes me off the hook since you obviously cherish your preconceived notions of what you think “people like me” say and do (and think)! So there’s no need on my part to respond in any way. You are the one having a meltdown and attacking me (I’m assuming I’m a stranger to you) because I wrote an OPINION piece. As time goes on, more people are writing the same opinion:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/features/view/feature/Giffords-iPad-Interview-Timely-or-Tactless-3129
and the before-mentioned:
http://www.fastcompany.com/1723701/the-daily-gabrielle-giffords-ipad-murdoch
Fast Company is hardly the granola-crunching, poncho-wearing cliché you trade in, now is it? If you were even remotely honest you’d realize your whole rant was based on one term: “right-wing”, which I actually added after I finished the piece and certainly isn’t germane to the TOPIC. The topic is if this is in bad taste or not. Bringing it up makes me Che?
If anyone wanted to see a PERFECT example of groupthink, they could just look at you last comment. I’m guessing from my traffic stats you came over from a Breitbart site, and YOU reinforce every cliché that entails. I don’t consider other Americans my “enemies”, no matter what their opinion. Maybe you are so used to thinking in those terms you have burnt out any vestige of dialogue.
Personally, I find that boring – but that’s as close to an insulting rant that you’ll squeeze outta me. I say as a self-proclaimed know-it-all your time might be better spent coming up with your own content than pissing on other’s. But then, you gotta go with your strengths.
There is nothing that can take you off the hook, you are the author of this blog.
So as with everything else, you are wrong about where I came from. I came over from a link on TUAW. It’s a Tech/Apple oriented blog with a readership that skews liberal.
One does wonder how you “misread” your logs into believing that someone that calls you out on your shameless use of Gabrielle Giffords, came form “Breitbart.” I haven’t visited that site yet, but if you do not like it, it probably is something that is very much like your site, except on the opposite side of the political spectrum (that and it’s probably a much more polished enterprise).
I just listed a number of issues that your orthodoxy will force you to take certain locked-in positions on. If you were not confined by your partisanship, you would probably be able to list at least one area in which you vary greatly from that orthodoxy. The thing is, you cannot do it. Do you have some different position on parental notification for abortion? Perhaps some idea about drug legalization that veers from the obvious orthodox liberal view? Maybe you step outside the box on liberal group-think on gun rights? Anything at all?
So I just took another look at your front page, these are the subjects of the last few screeds:
Rupert Murdoch, Tim Pawlenty, John McCain, someone you call “Fox News’ Ted Starnes,” again “Fox News” and other conservative sites, Republicans Boehner and Cantor.. and it just goes on and on.
When I was a kid I remember watching the news and it seemed as if many on the right were almost obsessed with President Clinton. Unfortunately, a similar malady has struck you. You don’t realize it and I don’t believe you ever will. At first I just thought I was schooling some college kid with his first blog, but sadly I think the person responsible for this blog might actually be an adult.
No adult thinks that because they leave snarky blog comments the author of that blog needs to “respond” in some way. I don’t feel any need to prove anything to some random stranger with a shitty attitude. Sorry my political opinions and/or blogs rub your orthadoxy of supposed centrism so raw. Go bore someone who might be angered by your insults and superior attitude. it ain’t me, sorry.
I certainly agree that the way the video has been handled comes off as shameless self-promotion that takes advantage of a terrible tragedy and the sudden celebrity status of this poor woman (as if the physical recovery from a bullet to the head and the emotional recovery of surviving a premeditated murder attempt which also resulted in the loss of close friends isn’t going to be enough of a hardship, can you imagine how things will be for her when she’s back on her feet and the media is all over her?). However, I find it a little funny that you talk about respecting Gabrielle Giffords and decry The Daily’s tastelessness while referring to her as “America’s favorite maimed Senator.” Aside from being pretty tasteless, it’s also factually incorrect, as she’s a member of the House of Representatives and not the Senate. So much for respecting her.
Point taken. I’ll change her to congresswoman. However, the snarkyness of that statement is meant to evoke the voice of the people using her, not my own… it is sarcasm, so it stays. Sorry you missed it.
I didn’t miss the sarcasm, and I actually appreciated it. But that doesn’t mean it’s not crass. And to be fair, she may actually just be America’s favorite Representative now, but that’s more to do with what we’ve learned about her character and dedication to the people rather than only a desire to use her for political or advertising purposes. By all accounts, she really is the personification of what we wish for all members of our government. Anyway, I do thank you for making the title correction, as I’ve seen a fair amount of people incorrectly referring to her as a Senator.
Right, it was crass on purpose to show how crass people who think like that really are. Sorry it’s still eluding you.
My opinion of this opinion piece is that the opinion is biased. I read in numerous respectable news sites that Giffords was well enouggh to sit up and use an iPad. To insinuate that everyone reporting this fact is succumbing to planted advertising by pro-Apple folks is ridiculous. What if she had been using a Sony laptop? They’d say she was using a laptop. The fact is the iPad is the only tablet around really so they name checked it as everyone knows what it is.
I never insinuated anything of the kind. I (and many other outlets now, including Gawker, and the articles I linked to in the update part) was responding to this particular story. I have no problem with stories that mention the iPad in passing, but I have a big one with a story that shamelessly pimps the iPad because it is central to their business model while making everyone who sees the story queasy because they “won’t waste” footage from someone who probably can’t talk anymore from a political assassination attempt. If you don’t find that distasteful, so be it, we can have a difference of opinion… but don’t tell me that I am attacking articles I don’t even mention just cuz you have different politics (or just have some other problem with my article). It is VERY CLEAR. I suggest reading it again and commenting to this again knowing that I’ll actually hold you to what you write and what I actually wrote.
Your first sentence is the only one that is even close to supportable… but I’d give it extra points for alliteration. You want a real debate, come with some actual facts. There is no way to read this and say that I “insinuate that everyone reporting this fact is succumbing to planted advertising by pro-Apple folks” unless you either didn’t read it or just don’t care how much of a liar you sound like. Do better.