Letters to the Editor
bystander
Published Letters: 1627
-
RMP
[Read the article: Joe Klein: Both factually false and stuck in the 1980s]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You and I have had bits of this conversation before, so it's likely not me you want to hear from. But jumping in anyway.... Currently, my household receives three newspapers every morning; two "local," one "regional." And when Times Select was running, I subscribed. Fifteen years ago, that list also included a print copy of the NY Times, The Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, and The Economist. My area is lucky to have two major newspapers who compete head-to-head, or used to, until they merged their business operations. They've tried to maintain their unique identities, but as time has gone on, predictably, they look increasingly more alike. Back when they were genuinely "at war" with each other, and I knew their respective subscriptions/numbers of subscribers were falling, I subscribed to both. Crazy, I suppose. I supported the competition the only way I knew how - by throwing money at both of them. Right now, I'd be just as happy to drop the three subscriptions we have, but my spouse is enamored of newsprint. I don't press because, in a sense, it works as a division of labor. He searches the mainstream - he knows what every other person in this area has been told, and I search out the nooks, crannies, and alternative sources online.
Speaking only of print (or, text-type) media whether printed on paper or displayed as pixels on a monitor screen, I'm of the opinion that the mainstream media is neither all bad, nor fully trustworthy. Reading various blogs requires me to analyze individual voices. It makes sense, given the number of voices available online, to be selective and use what analytical skills I have to determine the trustworthiness/usefulness of the information and accompanying analysis the author delivers. Increasingly, I approach bylines in "newsprint" (read online, or not) the same way. I gave up entirely on the teevee shortly after 9/11. And, I find the radio irksome when I'm driving a car. That approach has rendered "the mainstream" somewhat incomprehensible to me. I no longer take it for granted I know what a person means when they use the term. Is the person referring to TV, radio, press, or online? In addition, I separate news reporting in the press from the opinion pages. For me, it's all coming down to individual voices. Less where I find them, as it does to who owns the voice? Not who that person works for, but who is that person?
There are several conditions, then, I obligate myself to satisfy. First, is the recognition that I am time constrained. That's the recognition that I can't read everything that's out there. It follows, then, I have to be selective; ergo, what's the speaker's authority on the issue they're reporting? (Eg, Glenn on constitutional issues, Krugman on economic issues, etc) Third, is trying not to violate that old management canard; "Don't punish performance."
I no longer believe it is possible to "fix" the media. Jim White has an approach that I might hope could improve things. And, Jim and I kicked around a subject that got featured by Marc Cooper (Editorial Director of the Huffington Post's Off the Bus Project), which IIRC had to do with independent investigative work that could be sold to the news wires. In addition, there are some financially successful folks (George Soros and others) who are funding think tanks and other efforts to promote a liberal or progressive message.
In the final analysis, I think it all comes back to the point William Timberman made; it's a premise of eternal vigilance that occurs on an individual level. To borrow a phrase from Dear Abby, "you can't be made a doormat if you don't lie down." I'm afraid it is the human condition to coast along until something dreadful happens to cause you to re-think your premise. And, it has to be fairly dreadful (and, painful) otherwise the psychological/physical/economic/etc discomfort caused by change is too great a hurdle to overcome. The whole is very much influenced by the tyranny of the minority. Special interest groups with an issue dear to their hearts can influence outcomes because they're sincerely (rightfully or wrongly) and highly energized by the issue at hand. Those 25%-ers have had a huge impact on the rest of us. And, to be alert to any 25% group means the other 75% have got to be watchful and equally energized - all the time.
I think it's an error to observe teh M$M as a monolithic voice. It isn't really. It helps to be clear what part of the media we're talking about, and who within which part. We need to recognize the tremendous effort it currently requires to remain abreast, and we have to rely on each other's expertise to do so. Eg; I understand what data mining means in terms of scanner data generated by a grocery outlet. I need Arne and Ondolette to clarify what it means in terms of internet packets, and offer sources to understand it more fully and the danger it presents wrt FISA/warrantless wiretapping. I wonder how the average two worker, with three kids, a dog, more than one car, mortgage paying household keeps up at all? If I think about it, given the focused goals of movement conservatism, maybe the surprise is not how bad things got, but why it's not worse.