Letters to the Editor
-
The MYTHICAL Liberal Media
One hears this all the time... the Liberal Media and it's bias. Yeah - bias towards smokescreens and bullshit. This ought to make any respectable journalist hang their head in shame and stop passing the buck and making excuses that it is "station policy" or "what the viewers want" or any of the myriad other reasons one cannot do his/her job the way it was intended!
Who - What - When - Where - WHY!!!!
Remember those five Ws next time you read or hear/see a story on TV and ask yourself again if it's NEWS or BULLSHIT.
-
@ sgsanjose
The broadcast media can effectively circle the wagons and ignore this issue; first, because they are all guilty, and second, because they know the issue is too complex for the average TV-dependent news viewer (i.e., their audience) to grasp.
That second point is bullshit. It's not rocket science. Any competent writer could summarize the cogent points in GG's essay into a 30-second presentation that anyone with an IQ in spitting distance of average could follow. Some folks would care and some would tune it out, but most could understand it.
TV doesn't have to be dumbed down for the masses, it's just safer for the corporate media bottom-line if it is dumbed down. It's a hell of a lot easier for them to sell cars and beer -- and their own shoddy product -- if they don't give their viewers anything to think about. It has squat to do with whether their viewers can think.
-
--Ari Melber
"So what does it take to disqualify a former general from on-air analysis?"
Lack of honesty would be a good place to start.
Lack of objectivity would be another.
An obvious conflict of interest would be another.
It's really not hard to figure out the answer to that question, Ari.
-
@ mike in Seattle
The liberal media myth was bolstered by a study (sorry I forget details) that showed that most reporters tended to come down on the "left" side of a few hot-button issues. The fact that other studies (ditto) showed that most editors, publishers, news directors & producers, and -- obviously -- talking heads tend toward the right side is evidently not as important, despite the fact that all of those people have far more influence on the media than do reporters.
If you wanted to manipulate public perception, would you really rather be a reporter ... or would you rather be someone who tells the reporters what stories to cover and how to cover them?
-
Publican
I agree with Bystander about your sites and your courage. Good stuff. And you took on Ms. Dowd, biker boots and all!
Kind of scary those visitors you're attracting. They allow these industries to bend and break all the environmental rules, then they veil them behind the Homeland Security curtain, while still not requiring them to institute common-sense security measures to protect against real terrorist threats.
-
But are their pants on?
I needed to go back and re-read Ben Bochner's comment (link at sig) to find this:
Long after they have been revealed to be whores, they still choose to dress up in dignified suits and ties, eyebrows arched, heads cocked, hair blown-dry as they intone their Ted Baxter questions in baritone voices.
I had to chuckle. I'm pretty sure Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite kept their pants on. Awhile back I had read that these anchors were "spiff" from the waist up, but were likely to be dressed in shorts and flip flops from the waist down. That which is hidden from the camera by the desk, behind which they sit, is likely to be incongruent with the attire the audience sees. I'm not sure if its all anchors, and of course those in full camera view can't get away with this deception. Can't remember which financial-talking-heads-program my spouse was watching, but I guess one of the guys on the show actually stood up, and came around the "desk" to prove it was true.
So the next time you watch the teevee, you can let your imagination run with what these very spiff looking folks are wearing (or, not) hidden from camera view. I no longer watch the tube, but the odd glimpse I get now and then on the monitors at the health club, I can't help but speculate and grin.
-
bearpaw
I think that study was from the 70s. Also, the media tends to be liberal on social issues but conservative on foreign policy and economics.
Eric Alterman, who had already bashed the liberal media myth in What Liberal Media?, does so again in his new book We're All Liberals.
-
Bystander
So the next time you watch the teevee, you can let your imagination run with what these very spiff looking folks are wearing (or, not) hidden from camera view.
This sounds like the perfect cue for Good Celery to come along and riff on all the different kinds of boxers and briefs we might see.
How many different Fruits are there on that Loom? Superman Underoos anyone???
;-}
-
This has to be one of the all time dumbest "issues" ever......
One of the only media organs to respond to Barstow's inquiries was CNN, which used several of the suspect, Pentagon-connected military analysts in their war coverage.
Good Lord! High ranking military officials are connected to the Pentagon? Who would have thought!
Jeebus people, of course they are connected to the Pentagon, and of course they join defense contractors after retirement. Did you folks just fall off the turnip truck? Has it been mentioned how Mr. Eason Jordan vetted CNN's news from Iraq with Saddam before airing? Now THAT's a story.Meanwhile back at the ranch, every commenter has an agenda, not just generals. If this were a fair blog, the demand for disclosure of all affiliations would issue, not just the military's. Ah, but that isn't the case. The business analysts at CNBC do it at every appearance, why not the MSM? Perhaps the media is left-wing after all?
How about some analysis on the polygamy story instead? Their religious freedoms are being stomped on by the state. If they were Muslim, the situation would be the same but I'm sure the state would leave them alone. Perhaps the sect should start bombing people to gain their freedom. That strategy seems to work well in Europe. In the UK, not only is Muslim polygamy acceptable, one gets additional benefits for each wife. State benefits that is.
Civil liberties are being trampled on in Texas while Glenn investigates the obvious. Quelle suprise. Tsk. Tsk.