Letters to the Editor
Nequals1
Published Letters: 332 Editor's Choice: 7
-
About the relationship between "credibility" and readership/market share
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt on the noble glories of occupation]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Sorry for such tangentialism today, but I can't help but try to weave a few waving threads from recent examples:
NBC is refusing - in a very bare and brazen way - to address the evidence brought by the NYT, GG and others relative to disclosure of actual and potential conflicts of interest and the promulgation of propaganda as news.
The WaPo in both the news and editorial division, unfailingly produces propaganda which repeats WH and Bush appointee talking points. Somalia as another opportunity to repeat Iraq? Bring 'em on! - the no-bid contracts and war profiteering, that is. Also - I think that today's Somalia editorial was to soften up the readership for air assaults on Iran. "If we can do it in Somalia, think of the opportunities in Iran...."
ABC subverts a Democratic presidential candidate debate by inserting questions which are Republican ad hominem attacks against the candidates at the expense of evidence-based substantive policy and credentials questions.
Both television and print news media report steadily declining readerships and revenues, thus gutting news rooms of adequate budgets to produce and gather investigative news stories which are factual, evidence-based, well-sourced and portrayed in a contextually accurate manner.
No corporate media source has (to my knowledge) called for the impeachment of Bush/Cheney/Bush appointee.
Since the revenue streams continue to decline, the media consolidation results in corporate owners which all have government contract/military/political ties, and the media steadfastly continues to produce propaganda as news, isn't the emerging picture that of the corporate "parents" in concert with their parasitic hosts using consumers as propaganda recipients and fuel, and not as a public which has a right to be informed? I don't think they are worried about advertising revenue and market share - the readership/viewership's purpose is all about softening and supporting the corporate parent's overriding interests: government contracts/military/industrial interests.
I know that this has been touched on in the blogs, but if that is the overriding purpose of news divisions, it changes the dynamic of how we - the supposedly informed minority segment of the public - should in turn treat the media.
And maybe it isn't with the rightous indignation of GG and other experts who blog. Instead, maybe it should be with "parallel" news divisions which look, feel and interact like the corporate monsters for the purpose of planting real evidence and news for the passive majority consumer of media. But instead, these tabloid looking real news vehicles can use screaming headlines to unmask, in the simplest of terms, the lies that are fed out as news and can feed the truth.
You have to admit that blogs such as this one read well above the average American's reading ability and comprehension.
I remember in my one and only TEEVEE and radio news writing course that the local TV target audience was a C student in the 10th grade of high school - in the days before grades had been watered down to insignificance. Today, that would probably roughly equate to a fourth grade reading equivalency - go heavy on the photos and graphics, and very lightly on the multisyllables and nuanced arguments. In other words - a little more than bumper sticker slogans, but not much more.
And they will have to look like the MS/NBC, Fox, ABC, CBS, USAToday, etc. news sites - they should NOT look studious and serious like the WaPo and NYT. And remember - they all have integrated on air, print and web presences.
Finally - which robber baron is going to finance this? The other problem is that the resources have been so thoroughly stripped from 95% of the people, that the remaining resources are going to fuel and grocery bills and not to philanthropy.
Pandering to the masses? You bet. Feed them enough healthy food disguised as junk food and eventually they'll start to recover their health, in spite of themselves.
-
@ urban legend re: editors' names
[Read the article: Who needs Dana Perino when you have the NYT's Michael Gordon?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]NYT masthead link at my name
And Susan Edgerley, Asst. Managing Editor, is taking readers' questions at this url:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/business/media/05askthetimes.html?pagewanted=all
-
OT: DOD/Pentagon document dump re: propaganda generals
[Read the article: McCain embraces Bush's radical views of executive power]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Link at my name to the dumped documents. Sorry for the OT, but thought you might want the FYI.
-
Nursing and its absence from healthcare reportage
[Read the article: Hospital, USA]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Many commenters here have focused on the perceived and actual roles of professional nurses. Well part of the problem is that nurses and nursing issues receive zero reportage throughout all of healthcare coverage. (If you doubt that, check for yourself: on any healthcare story or health website, search for the terms, nurse or nursing.)
I blog about nursing issues (did it full time on the blog, Universal Health) and find myself slipping into old habits on my current blog called Home of the Brave (link at my name). In fact, today I took the Wall Street Journal to task for its creative fiction about nursing during this recession.
Please read and learn about the facts behind the stereotypes and the public image of nurses and nursing. It ain't at all what you think (unless you are a nurse and know first hand).
http://universalhealth.wordpress.com