Letters to the Editor
-
Nixon era press better?
IIRC, someone pointed out in an earlier post that the WH reporters during the Nixon era also let many stories pass unremarked, and it was the then low-level reporters Woodward and Bernstein who broke the big story. SSDD (different decade).
-
What many comments in this discussion miss
is the degree to which the audience helps to drive the quality of programming that we end up with.
The difference between the coverage of Viet Nam (which I recall as being much better) and our current situation is much more than just the fairness doctrine. The number of outlets for information is ballooning while the number of entities in charge of content is dwindling. Viacom alone has 21 separate logos on the front page of their website including Comedy Central and MTV. The result is that the competition for eyeballs is fierce and sex, flashing lights and explosions (not necessarily in that order) are the easiest way to draw people's attention. Quality reporting on the issues of the day is a non-starter. Unless of course it can be depicted as a cat-fight. It's no wonder that Nancy Pelosi gats the kind of coverage she does. It's as if our entire media infrastructure has devolved to the National Enquirer.
To simply blame "Corporate Media" is to oversimplify. Corporations are just collections of individuals and they don't operate in a vacuum.
-
Audience a part, too
Audience is also an issue. As Glenn has noted, often, there's rarely (if ever) one over-arching unified theory that explains the collapse of a system in a simple sentence or two, and so part of it is the insular (non) vision of the media insiders, but I wonder if a part of it is also the audience (and any number of other factors I haven't been able to figure out, as well).
If the sales are there (and perhaps they're not; from what I understand newspaper sales are suffering heavily, but perhaps it's not the case in other media outlets), then the output of content and form continues, because it's a breadwinner.
Rush Limbaugh, for all his distortions and outright lies, remains on the air (he's not a news source, though many people probably turn to him for "news") because he's generating dollars for the networks.
For whatever reason, it appears to be serving CNNs shareholders, or bottom line, or whatever, to devote inordinate amount of attention to the death of a celebrity with paternity issues, rather than focusing more on abuses by the administration, and so forth.
I don't want to argue against people enjoying and having access to the media content and news they want (celebrity gossip or weather or geopolitical reporting or what-have-you). But it seems to me that the national audience, as a whole, plays a role in what gets distributed.
Now, the other counter-problem to this (one other one, anyway), is that if the audience at-large does not recognize that what is being disseminated is, in fact, false, or at least against their best interest, then it's tough to fix, because how do you use the media that is trusted to explain to those trusting the media that the media can't be trusted?
No kings,
Robert
-
Once again
I remain a slower typist than Paul Dirks. Hats off, Paul. Well said.
No kings,
Robert
-
No mysteries here
The US political system rests on a festering mound of fraud, corruption, barbarism, cynicism, exploitation, racism, greed, paranoia and waste. If journalists started really exploring how far the rot goes, they would soon find themselves accused of being communists, terrorists, traitors or worse. Journalists understand very well what kind of writing furthers their careers and what kind will leave them without a job. Articles critical of government statements or policy (or big business interests) simply CAN'T see the light of day (excepting certain foreign media and internet sites).
-
Journalists
"You know Glenn, I really think that this general lack of accountability or responsibility is much broader problem for our nation in general. It could be argued that it's been a problem that's been increasing exponentially from generation to generation, but I don't really know for sure. What I do know is that this mindset is evident across the spectrum of professions and hits all aspects of American life." ...James V
James V...
Do you think this might explain Katrina, Post-war Iraq, The Justice Department, The Bush Administration, etc., etc.? I think it boils down to the simple fact that we, as Americans, have gotten extreeeemly lazy. Everything is everyone else's fault. A "reporter" can't take the time to check NexisLexis or even "The Google" to cross-reference sources for accuracy and truthfulness?? Give me a break! I do research all the time and before I EVER put pen to paper, I make sure that what I'm writing is accurate - FIRST! Yes, I make mistakes but if I do, it's not for a lack of EFFORT in trying to verify my information. Sadly, we have become the "CAN'T DO" nation (governmentally) and the "WON'T DO" nation (journalistically). We are both arrogant AND LAY-ZEEEE - a deadly combination in a democracy!
-
Casual Observer:
For example, should people like Greenwald continue to hammer away at the corporate media in order to provoke change (not suggesting this is GG's goal)? Or conversely, should there be an effort to simply write them off, and produce new venues that will simply replace existing media as we know it.
My own belief is that good, healthy journalism will be produced faster and with least effort by bypassing the corporate media machine, which is too deeply entrenched and--as GG opines here--largely unable to perceive that a problem exists.
I agree on both counts - this is they key question, and I agree with your answer. But I don't think creating alternatives to the national press is mutually exclusive with criticizing it. I think continuing to criticize it, even when building alternatives, is vital for two reasons:
(1) that pressure can marginally change behavior -- through persuasion, shame, and from those in the press who are well-intentioned, and
(2) criticisms of the national press is what fuels and builds up the need for the alternatives -- i.e., by exposing the national press as lacking in credibility, it creates a demand and a place for alternatives.
People will only be receptive to an alternative once they realize there is something wrong with what they already have.