Letters to the Editor
kovie
Published Letters: 628
-
chopsb
[Read the article: The warped reality of our media stars]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why there is such a disconnect between the narrative fed to us by the media stars and the public's actual views?
Because, depending on the specific media outlet and people involved in getting a given story out ("stars" and supporting cast alike), the media either doesn't get it, sort of gets it but continues to follow the herd, or gets it quite well but nevertheless actively, consciously and intentionally pretends otherwise--all for a variety of reasons including but not necessarily limited to outright propaganda, shilling, bribery, ratings, ideology, careerism, cowardice, opportunism, etc.
But if one were to try to reduce it to one overall explanation or theme, I'd say that the media, by and large, are reactive and self-preservationist, and, having operated in a climate in which the right has not only dominated politically for several decades, but has also masterfully dominated it--i.e. the media--for just as long, and in which caving into this reality has proven to be hugely profitable despite its shamefulness on a professional, ethical and I'd argue moral level, the media is simply reactively choosing to continue to cover the news as it has in the past, as if nothing has changed.
They're just doing what for years has worked for them (but not, clearly, for the American people and our republic), and even though the underlying reality that made this "success" possible is now undergoing drastic transformation, they are not yet willing to acknowledge this and change accordingly, for what I imagine is a combination of the sorts of factors that typically prevent people and organizations from making objectively necessary and obvious changes, e.g. fear, inertia, denial, cognitive dissonance, cowardice, cluelessness, etc. Why do people continue to smoke when they know how bad it is for them? Why do people not lose weight when they know that they should? Why does the media continue to report and spin the news in ways that clearly fly in the face of reality? Different questions, similar if not same answers.
I think that the Versailles metaphor is most apt. The DC media by and large live in a beltway bubble that is not unlike the one that Versailles courtiers lived in. On the one hand it shields them from objective reality, and on the other hand it--in their minds--protects them from it. The dumber members are able to stay in blissful denial so long as they're protected by this bubble (e.g. O'Donnell). The smarter ones are able to pretend to not know what's really going on outside this bubble so long as they're in it (e.g. Stengel). But the bubble's going to burst fairly soon, and has really started to, I think.
To borrow a Rumsfeldian (or Cheneyesque?) quote, today's DC media outlets and "stars" are, by and large, the "dead-enders" of their field, knowingly and/or unknowingly continuing to sell the same old tired stories and spin that might have worked for them in the past (even if they were little truer then), but which I believe no longer work for them now. But, by and large, not being terribly courageous, ethical or moral--and in more than a few cases intelligent--they continue to pretend otherwise, i.e. that these stories and spin are not only TRUE, but that the public is still buying them.
Although for a while the public did appear to either buy it, or not object strongly enough, they were never really true to begin with (e.g. Repubs strong on national security and values). But now not only are they still untrue, but the public is no longer buying it. Yet the media continues to sell it as if nothing has changed. Quite pathetic, really, and almost disappointing, except that to be truly disappointing they would have had to have lowered their standards--but that happened years if not decades ago.
This generation of media "stars" and outlets is really a lost cause, I believe. Alternative outlets and journalists will have to emerge eventually and replace them, for the media as a whole to regain its credibility, usefulness and professionalism. Russert, O'Donnell, Matthews, Stengel, Halperin, etc., might to some extent adapt to changing realities and even improve their coverage. But I view most of them as so intellectually, ethically, professional and morally corrupt as to be beyond redemption. They are all, in their own way, Imus, and simply have to go away--for good, hopefully. I'm there'll be ample professional opportunities working for a recuscitated GOP, in media relations.
I yield the floor and reserve such time as may remain...