Letters to the Editor
-
@Dirigo @bystander
With all due respect, I believe that Mike Sulzer or one of the other physicists could do a better job. On the surface, the Uncertainty Principle just says that the act of observing changes what's observed, but in a very precise manner, with very strict consequences. But it gets into the fundamental graininess of the universe, and what can and cannot be known simultaneously, and treating fundamental things like probability distributions and stuff.
A real Connections-style work up would be fascinating.
bystander did you know that the main SDI device was essentially a way to capture the energy from a thermonuclear explosion in space and channel it into a laser or ion beam that could be pointed at the ground? In a very real sense, it was nuclear weaponry without the fallout consequences -- a very scary proposition since no fallout would "legalize" it's use in the public mind. The Soviets believed it was an offensive weapon, because they calculated that if built to spec, it could raster the city of Moscow, targeting and setting each and every building in a city of 10 million people on fire -- in 17 seconds.
-
Imperfection -- the dominant characteristic of all human endeavors
The ‘noble’ model of ‘news’ casting was crushed, because it turned out that, when given a choice, most people preferred a more entertainment-centric version. Jebbie gets this when Jebbie notes that “FOX is just the manifestation of the quest for turning a profit with the News department” but seems to disregard that, in markets tending toward perfect, a profit gets turned because people like the product, not because people have a product they don’t like imposed on them.
Could you actually support this assertion? Profits in the media "get turned" if enough advertising can be sold to pay for production, irrespective of whether the ephemeral "viewing public" is really "there" or not. Media managers need only convince the marketing departments of ad-buyers that they have a desirable viewing audience -- that doesn't mean one actually has to exist or that they are actually optimizing to retain it.
Jebbie, I agree that IF producers were forced by the market to provide quality reporting on candidates positions, they would. However, based on what I observe, I think it is wildly optimistic for us to expect ‘the Public’ to make such a demand. -- talesofunrest
I suspect it is even more wildly optimistic to presume that input from "The Public" is actually sought or acknowledged by the management elite of the MSM. That idea is implicit in your arguments wrt to Jebbie -- the idea that the MSM business model relies on the real behavior of a major chunk of the electorate. Problem is -- in 2008 "The Public" is not paying attention to them anymore, although market "experts" still use the language and mindset of the 50s-70s, when, arguably, an "American Public" was watching the tube together.
What seems striking to me in this era of market segmentation is how the newsmedia fails to serve its natural demographic. That demographic is us -- the political junkies who are actually paying attention (for some bizarre reason). Why do they fail us? Perhaps because they haven't found a reliable way to define us as a market segment or because we are refractory to advertising efforts -- I don't know. However, contemporary efforts to turn the news into reality TV seem very lame to me. Like management knows they have a non-refractory audience in one product line (reality shows), and is hoping to magically redirect it into another line, and then sell that line to the ad-buyers.
In the gold mining business, men called promoters "flog" properties that may or may not have the potential to become viable mines, and these properties may or may not get explored, depending on whether funds can be raised to do so, and whether the government permits it. The "best" potential mines can languish unexplored for years, for reasons that have little to do with what is logically optimal.
The MSM is little different in this regard. It is a human construct, remember?
-
We will be able to think real hard and make the bad man's head explode.
Or maybe we could just play Slim Whitman ;-)
-
@taleofunrest
The "noble model" remains as an idea of solid, reliable, accurate, news gathering.
As far as broadcast news goes, deregulation quickened the pace of change, away from the noble model to the soup-to-nuts choices, which provided lots of work for shallowly trained reporters, hundreds of braying talk show hosts, and lots and lots of noisy programming that is aimed at the common denominator.
Where are we now in this sound and fury with respect to news?
Some might say we're at a dangerous place.
Based on what Chris Matthews said Tuesday night, I would say we've hit the high point of absurdity in a show biz sense. But it's not that funny.
The economics of the business are changing along with the technology; there's so much promise amidst the peril, and there is peril.
The public may not be able or willing to demand "reforms" that purists might want (I prefer the noble model because that's what I admired, studied and trained for as the standard of the time); but there's sure a rumbling our there after the New Hampshire primary.
-
OKAY TEAM ... READY ... GET SET ... GO
Pick up your remotes, find the OFF button and CLICK. Then write letters to the suits upstairs at MSNBC, CNN, NY TIMES,ETC.(add your own list)and tell them why you are ending your relationship and/or subscription and tell them you will boycott their advertisers. If all of you do it, it will have more impact than if you sit at your computers day after day venting your rage at Chris Matthews and his ilk. And as a PS, ask the networks to cut the damned reality shows. The public needs something better.
I never thought it would happen, even in a blog, that the media would finally get called on their lack of accuracy, integrity and substance. These blather heads have contaminated the airways and the Maureen Dowds and Gail Collins make independent-thinking women cringe that female bylines are inhabited by airhead bozos -- yes, they are funny at times, but destructive to women who take a more serious path to the important business of electing a president. They are just as guilty as is Chris Matthews of depicting women as frivilous idiots who have no business running for president.
MR. GREENWALD ... KEEP IT COMING. THE MEDIA NEEDS A HUGE KICK IN THE ASS. IT MAY NOT CHANGE THEM, BUT AT LEAST YOUR READERS WILL KNOW SOMEONE IS TRYING TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT. THANKS.