I was watching Countdown the other day. I used to really enjoy this show. It seems that at a certain point, Olbermann (sp?) was given a lot of latitude to air subversive and counter-conventional wisdom opinions and stories. I was alwasy fascinated and somewhat pleased that such things were getting on the air--especially his scathing over-the-top hysterics about Bush on some of his program--his "you sir"'s.

But lately I find myself fast forwarding the Tivo through almost the entire program. There used to be rarely seen guests with actual credentials for political critique, but lately these have been replaced by the same regular cadre of Newsweek lifers, snapping about candidate rhetoric and image but giving no deeper info. And more and more, I find Olbermann twisting the day's news cycle to fit his increasingly two-dimensional "progressive" analysis. Much like Fox, Olbermann spins the other way, and mundane scenes and events with very little to do with anything are twisted into evidence of the evil of the right and thrown to us like red meat to the lions.

My point is this: In this media machine, even the left wing, when given a voice, is whittled, and warped and fit snugly into soundbites and caricatures. And I have to say, given PBS's (and NPR's) horrifyingly bad coverage of the Iraq war since its inception, that public media outlets cannot be expected to be critical of the establishment when it really matters.

Any ideas on what's to do?

I thought that the internets were influencing the mainstream media. Mostly negatively, since the internet can be used to make any ridiculous assertion seem worth considering.

However, as to why Joe Lunchables doesn't sit down and read the New York Times on line or a Baghdadi blog, I often ask myself that same question. My personal feeling is that people want quick, biteable and entertaining news--they like the stuff that pops up on their Yahoo or AOL home page--kidnappings, murders, dumb criminals. If those same people go to a real news website, they are going to encounter an entire world of policy and countries, terms, histories and people they don't know exist. And I assume that's a turn off for the person using the internets as an entertainment device. Or you could just ask my sister--she doesn't even know how to find her email home page.

I agree about the dry lemon. The new lemon seems not to be McCain ironically, enough, but Clinton. The name Clinton has replaced that of Bush, and there is still much juice in that rind. The names have been changed--the Democrat good guy is Obama now, but the bad guy is also a Democrat, Clinton. In any case that hole is rapidly running dry for me; I'll save my outrage for when I'm outraged. I can't do it every evening at 5:01 pm.

Though I share your opinion that the public's trust in the press has been progressively deteriorating, I'd like to point out another way of viewing the statistics for CNN that you mentioned. In 1998, CNN was coming to the end of nearly two decades of cable news hegemony. In late 1996, MSNBC, CNBC and Fox news moved into that sector all at once. I think the results of that study could also be showing that CNN was once reveered for its objectivity simply because its format made it unique and ubiquitous. Once everybody else got in the act--and CNN premiered its Headline News to compete with Fox--the man behind the curtain was revealed. Viewers perhaps, thinking that anyone with enough cash could start their own 24 hour news network on cable, lost faith in the purity of their former deity.

I thought this part was hilarious:

"One of the few sources that has not suffered a credibility decline in recent years is Fox News Channel. Currently, one-in-four (25%) say they believe all or most of what they see on Fox News Channel, virtually unchanged since the outlet was first tested in 2000."

Fox, as one would guess, starts at the bottom of the credibility range and keeps on ticking.

But I actually agreed with you, regarding the decline in public trust of the media. I think CNN stands apart from the others--it had much higher figures in 1998, and consequently dropped much further. For nearly twenty years it operated with no competition and was America's--and the world's news source for an entire generation of US sponsored global conflict. The advent of 4 twenty four news networks has also exposed the public to a face of media they normally would not have seen--and the viciously rapid news cycle has forced the networks to go further and further out on a limb to compete. The resulting overexposure could account for some of the decline. I don't think you can rule that out, but you're entitled to your opinion.

Oops, correction...I think the facts are more on your side than mine, actually. I scrolled further, and yes print media have taken a nose dive too. And obviously that probably has a lot to do with WMD, etc. But I like the way my theory sounds....