[...] today’s On Point, Michael Wolff, Steve Brill, and I talked about Murdoch and Google and the show’s blog quoted me thusly: But News Corp isn’t the only one making the mistake here. I think the mistake that [...]

Tom, I listen to NPR every day, but if I want to hear yelling and screaming on the air the likes of Wolff and Brill, I can do that on Fox. Please don’t let that happen again. Henry

I tuned in late to the first hour this morning, missing the introduction, and therefore immediately assumed I had gotten the wrong station. What a shock to hear the familiar voice of Tom Ashbrook. This kind of “discussion” is not what I expect from NPR, which heretofore has been a model of rational civility. I hope this will not happen again; it was far below your usual standard.

Among the sound and fury of Wolff and Jarvis, the truth was lost. Outrageous and nonsensical claims were made (and left unchallenged but for one caller) about American journalism–”journalists are all hacks..all they do is rewrite press releases”, etc. What never made it to top of the discussion is that a million independent “reporters” hired by themselves without regard to background and qualification to supplant a professional corps of investigative journalists (albeit shrinking because of the likes of Murdoch, equity media company ownership and their ilk ) is not a solution for a viable democracy. The Press is not an institution to be allowed to ruin because of a robber baron from Australia or a real estate magnate in Illinois or ninnies like Wolff and Jarvis who have their own careers to promote. The Press is an institution our founders felt should be protected by the Constitution. Who does Wolff think will have the credibility and expertise to cover city hall in Peoria and a rogue school board in Anytown, USA, if serious newspaper journalism is cheerily embalmed and buried? “This is something to celebrate,” they said. This was a frightening show.

Just one uninformed observation: I am uninformed because I’ve never listened to the show at length only because it’s on late in the evening in my area. So I only hear snippets if I’m in the car. But I decided today to give a listen online. I must agree, it sounded a lot like a cable shout fest, though I sensed Mr. Ashbrook was embarrassed. Let’s hope so. It didn’t make me want to listen again.

Just 86 Wolff. He is an insult to NPR and it’s listeners.

Pien et al: I can’t believe you posted again on this disaster of a show. It’s giving me a headache to listen to pieces of it again.

Michael Wolf is a total jerk or rather, a “hack,” breathing way too much of his own exhaust.

I am a Cornerstone member of St. Louis Public Radio because I enjoy listening to “in depth news and intelligent talk.”

I ditto Henry Crais’s comments. On Point is broadcast here at 8 pm, so I listen every night while my kids are showering and getting ready for bed. They give me grief about always having this on, and I assert that it is a forum where everyone has a chance to make their case and no one raises their voices or gets out of control. And it’s a good opportunity to learn from non-biased profressionals who just present the facts as they understand them. It lets you make up your own mind.

Don’t know what was going on in your mind, Tom, but, like others have said, I don’t want to hear this kind of “discourse” again. Let Fox have the glove matches. You’re stronger than that.

Love you, man. Live and learn.

Barb

“Lets not make newspapers religious institutions” – Michael Wolff

Made my morning.

Please don’t invite Michael Wolff back to the show, at least not until he learns some manners. Thanks.

Hooo-aaaa! What a show! FAR more contentious than your usual ‘On Point’! Loved it! IMO, disregard those who say “don’t do it again”. No worries, you’ve never done it before, not likely to repeat!!

Some points. Wolff is DEAD ON RIGHT about newspapers and journalists. MOST people don’t realize, and highly romanticize, what the real role of newspapers in our society has been. Newspapers gained supremacy from periodicals, due to technology. Teddy White does a very nice and readable synopsis of this evolution in his book: “In Search of History”. AP and Reuters claimed their business because communication was limited. Now we have cell phones, and AP and Reuters are losing their edge! Newspapers were never the historical “unbiased” model commonly attributed to them today. They were far more commonly yellow sheets, shouting out the editor’s viewpoint! Journalistic integrity is a very modern invention. Read Mark Twain for validation.

What Wolff is saying mirrors a concept I’ve been writing about: that newspapers are generally not news-ORIGINATORS. They are, for the most part, news-repeaters. They take AP, Reuters, or the press release, add a few words, rephrase a little maybe. That was 99% of the daily newspaper’s content. News-repeaters have a losing economic business model today.

You had a caller, “Steve”, who talked about the WSJ. His analysis of the WSJ, as an example of contemporary newspapers was completely invalid. WSJ has, for as long as I have known it (40+ years) been a news originator, NOT, for the most part, a news-repeater.

Watergate was news-origination. Printing an AP report on whatever is not- it is news-repeating. News-repeaters will not survive, because the cost of news-repeating to the consumer has gone down, way down, with the internet.

Wolff spoke of the Chicago Trib, the Boston Globe, and others. All major newspapers, yet still, primarily news-repeaters. They may die as a result, but the distribution of the news will not.

Excellent programming, Mr. Ashbrook! The future of the news is a vital topic and one of the few out there that inspires true hope for our democracy. I suspect that a lot of the backlash to yesterday’s guests had a lot to do with generational sensibilities.

The newspaper era has ended and the baby boomers are sad. I am a member of a younger generation. I have grown up using the internet but I am still aware of the way it has transformed the world of my parents and grandparents. That said, nostalgia over Rupert Murdoch’s vice grip on the newspaper industry is total delusion. Thank you for inviting guests onto your show who refused to allow that deceitful line of reasoning any airplay whatsoever. The internet is the future and the future is now.

Members of the NPR crowd who complain that the debate got out of hand need to take a break from all the finger-wagging and grow some backbone. I can just picture them (“ooohh heavens someone’s not using their ‘indoor’ voice! Quick! must turn channel to something bland and monotonous!)

I thought it was hilarious how Wolff and Jarvitz tag-teamed Brill. They were like, NOPE. Go peddle your romantic hogwash somewhere else.

Great show, period.

I thought it was a great show! There was a moment or two when the guests got a little out of control but there were some great points and it’s a passionate subject. I loved hearing the point of view of looking at what comes out of the media on a daily basis rather than upholding Woodward and Bernstein as the example of what our news does – they’re right: Iraq, the Economy – all missed by mainstream media. Great discussion and forget the folks who want a polite conversation over tea. Sometimes you have roll up your sleeves if you want to get to the bottom of something. Great show…

Oh, you gentle souls, unaccustomed to passionate expression. Sometimes even grown ups may raise their voices. To do so does not render invalid one’s arguments. There is a practically limitless supply of white noise and ethno-ambient recordings with which you can soothe your beleaguered, honkey souls, should NPR erupt into actual two-sided debate and briefly rob you of your aural wallpaper.

Any of you delicate ninnies want to address the points raised, or shall we assume anyone who feels put upon by (really quite mild) shouting is automatically in favor of whatever the journalistic priesthood prefers? (That last bit is a logical leap, I realize, but I’m making it anyway.)

Fantastic show! I’m a fan long time listener of NPR, and I found this debate, refereshing to say the least. This is a far cry from the fisticuffs constantly shown on FOX NEWS. What’s wrong with a little passion and expression now & then for what you believe in?

Excellent show! New listener, I was pointed here by Jeff Jarvis’ blog. I thought the debate was “lively” and entertaining and look forward to tuning into you again.

I have to agree with the people who think the show got out of hand. I disagree with those who say we are ninnies that only want to defend the romantic notion of newspapers. At first I liked what Wolff and Jarvis were saying, but was irritated that callers only got to say a few words before being shouted down. Half of the reason I listen is to hear what other listeners have to say. I was surprised Tom let them get away with it. The show says, “We hope you’ll add your voice to the On Point conversation.” Yesterday the only voices were those of Wolff and Jarvis. The callers didn’t get to add theirs. Pretty soon the guests started sounding like broken records that could only defend their position by shouting down everyone else. That IS more reminiscent of FOX.

Love the show but at the hour that I watch it (mid-evening) I am not looking dor childish bickering and interruptions. I don’t know how old Michael Wolf is, but I am guessing he is not too far removed from his teenage years. Let the other man speak and be respectful. We want to hear all sides. This is not Oberman or Hannity.

The link above appears to be bad (what the heck is httpv?) and the original MP3 appears to have been removed. Makes me wonder…

Here is the direct link to another version:

http://podcastdownload.npr.org/anon.npr-podcasts/podcast/330/510053/120590020/WBUR_120590020.mp3?_kip_ipx=669853498-1258817686

… but Michael Woolf’s supercilious self-aggrandizement and belligerance, particularly toward Brill, was wrong, wrong, wrong. Nasty and off-putting.

Tom & the producers of On Point:

I often listen to On Point in the car on my way to Boston in the mornings,and I want to add my voice to those who have said that this is exactly the kind of show I do not want to hear. It was more like O’Reilly or Hannity than the reasoned debate I have come to expect from WBUR. Michael Wolfe was perhaps the most rude, cantankerous and adolescent guest I have ever heard on the show. Whatever valid points he had to make were completely negated by his acidic interruptions and biting attempts at put-downs. I hope that you are forwarding all the comments to him, perhaps if he hears it enough times he will realize how obnoxious he was.

It was not the subject matter that was objectionable. I enjoy the great variety on this program and we can all learn from and appreciate differing views. However, the reason most of us listen to Tom Ashbrook is that he manages to interview people of varying views, many of whom he probably does not agree with, but always respectfully – and he allows others to complete their statements and then does not insult them for doing so. These guests were repeatedly rude, insulting and condescending to everyone who did not agree with them. They interrupted often. I hope they will not be back on this show unless they are willing to be respectful in the same manner as their host, Tom Ashbrook.

[...] almost mythic … Rupert Murdoch: Google profits by avoiding news-gathering costs Examiner.com Michael Wolff and Jeff Jarvis on Murdoch v. Google On Point Radio TMT SUMMIT:News Corp Working On Plans For Online News Charge Wall Street [...]

Just listed to this show on podcast. Entertaining for sure, but more in the lines of Fox. Especially, Michael Wolff’s behavior was out of line with NPR’s code of conduct. Maybe Mr. Wolff should take a dose of his medicine and limit himself to web blogging.

[...] today’s On Point, Michael Wolff, Steve Brill, and I talked about Murdoch and Google and the show’s blog quoted me thusly: But News Corp isn’t the only one making the mistake here. I think the mistake that [...]

@ Bob Griendling

It would be unfortunate for anyone to judge OnPoint by this episode because it’s very atypical of the show as a whole. The reason I love OnPoint is precisely because it’s always full of intelligent debate and not the usual shoutfest that every cable TV show or conservative radio talk show has turned into.