Letters to the Editor
-
not a conspiracy nut....
Glenn wrote, way back there...
Why did the corporate bosses allow such stories out? Everyone who has an Overaching Unifying Theory about how things work can always take contrary evidence and use it to support their theory (they do that to create the illusion of a working press, etc. etc.).
*********
I should have been a little more thoughtful in my initial post. I am not a conspiracy theorist by any means. I don't think anyone meets with anyone to plan much of anything...unless you're talking about the mutants in Cheney's office.. {g}
Rather, I know that reporters have supervisors--editors--and those editors have supervisors. In short, in general, MSM runs like any other business. *If* those supervisors thought that their reporters' work was substandard (that, for instance, it parroted GOP talking points..or White House talking points without any analysis at all), those supervisors--those editors--would make some changes.
The fact that these reporters editors do nothing, begs the question: why? If it's so obvious to us that much (not all, but much) of MSM's work in reporting the news is arrogant, lazy, and simply wrong, howcome it's not obvious to the editors? That's not a political issue either: that's a technical issue. An issue of basic craft.
So, my question remains, or, rather, my question is this: who benefits when reporters parrot GOP talking points? Who benefits when reporters in MSM treat the right-wing fringe as mainstream? What reasons do professional reporters have for doing lousy work? I'm sure those reasons are overdetermined...as the shrinks say...but, in the end, someone is evaluating the work of these reporters on a daily basis. As a matter of business. Why are the editors falling down on the job so badly? Just askin'.