Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
between church and state.
I believe a rotation of White House reporters would help distance this cozy relationship. Unfortunately not much can be done when the administration chooses who to be interviewed by on TV.
And now it is up to us, comrades, to correctly interpret the news, rather than just read some objective, unbiased facts on the page.
Interesting times. Glenn, you remind me so much of the Horse, it's scary and comforting at the same time...
...if you intended to have any Corporate Media people (like KO, or David Gregory) on Salon Radio in order to rake them over the coals a bit on this and similar issues. Rache Maddow will probably happily speak w/ you, right?, but I would imagine you and her are a bit too simpatico for any real fireworks.
Instead, let me ask you this. Some time, when you're not doing anything else, will you pen a preemptive malogy for Robert Novak? Man, I'd love to read that one.
You'd be the next recipient for the Medal of Freedom. Great work today, Glenn.
Glenn, you talk about the media's role as passing on official government propaganda. Their role is really to pass on the propaganda of the right wing power structure. Since the right wing now controls the administration, the media naturally goes with the administration's narrative. Of course, the press had the same role when Clinton was in power, passing along right wing propaganda AGAINST the administration. I think it is useful to keep the distinction clear. The media doesn't suck up to any sort of power--just the power of their corporate masters.
Don't forget Tony. He was practically beatified by the press when he died, despite having lied to them for years.
Good article.
George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four was intended as a warning of how the world would develop if certain current trends of 1948 persisted.
In the nightmarish world of Nineteen Eighty-Four government officials of Minitru (The Ministry of Truth) were tasked with constantly consigning history to the "memory hole" and replacing it with "official versions".
While Orwell got most of it right, what he didn't foresee would be that media corporations would actually do the government's dirty work for profit. (No doubt this omission was largely because his own personal experience lay in working for the propaganda department of the BBC in World War II.)
However there is little doubt that we are living in the world of Nineteen Eighty-Four and that the propaganda system is so powerful that the majority of the proles don't even notice that it exists. Not only that, but they are prepared to pay a substantial part of their income for bigger, better TVs, cable, satellite etc. to better deliver the propaganda to their homes and families.
Oh, well, democracy was a bold experiment, but the odds were always against it lasting long.
I believe you are correct.
Glenn, I think it is high time you create an ongoing spotlight of this kind of journalistic lovefest and lack of integrity by creating your own "Top Ten" list of reporters who most embody everything a journalist should not be. I suggest this list be compiled on a quarterly basis, with a bullet point for each "winner" on the list briefly describing their latest example of incestuous behavior or willingness to be a tool of the gov't.
To do so would not be difficult, and I would think such a list would be picked up by other blogs, progressive sites, and media critics, further illuminating these poor and subservient excuses for journalists.
Also, and I would argue just as importantly, it would also be well worth reading to see a Top Ten list of journalists who you think are doing a good job in their reporting. A contrast of these lists would make crystal clear the differences (and how vast they really are) between good reporting, and reporting which only serves to propagandize the citizenry.
I for one would spread this list around to everyone I know in an effort to wake people up to the media stars who are the worst of the worst and don't merit even a first glance or read.
Seriously, what is the purpose of of White House reporters, if not to distribute propaganda? The jobs involves no actual journalism, and the public would be better served if there were none. In the rare case of a presidential news conference, the troops could come rushing in. Standard White House press releases should go on the web only, where everyone has an equal chance to locate the lies and misinformation.
...but forcibly retired dictators are totally credible sources of unbiased information.
Or, you know, not.
An excellent piece. I am reminded that no one has helped stenography to acquire its art form status than the late Timbo and his ever growing circle of sycophants whose main claim to fame is their mindless repetition of WH Talking Points - and Republican WH Talking Points, just to be clear.
By asking them to question what they receive as WH wisdom, to bring a sceptical eye to bear on the stuff dished out to them and to evaluate what they receive you are imposing an intolerable burden on people who are, after all, amiable dunces.
As soon as we have a Democrat in the White House these scribblers will magically recall their professional responsibilities and proceed to lie and distort as usual, except that it will be against the incumbent. They will, after all, be still feeding at the Republican Talking Points trough.
I am perpetually impressed by the astonishing ability of our major news producer elites' ability to simultaneously back two contradictory fallacious arguments:
(1) Your crazy conspiracy theories about how we astoundingly independent journalists could ever, ever be influenced by our social connections with those we cover are utterly and completely wrong, because we have all sorts of fancy mental training to prevent that and also our employers and ethics rules take care of all of that.
And they follow that up with this beauty, demonstrated directly by the segment Glenn quoted:
(2) Our social connections with the people we cover allow us even more independent insight into their duties, because it allows us to understand their awesome, super-fascinating decision-making methods.
It's partly through their constant social interactions with their subjects that journalists -- and more importantly the content controllers such as editors & publishers -- become convinced that the story is not what is actually being done by whom, but the fascinating inner story of the psychological and biohistorical development of some policy, whatever it may be.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
