DAN "Times New Roman" RATHER
EASON "The Soldiers Are Firing At Me" JORDAN
I guess some folks are blinded by the obvious...
| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| The New Yorker: Why is everyone mad at the mainstream media? |
| 2005-02-15 |
| This is an incredibly well-written and intelligent article by Nicholas Lemann. Here are several quotes from the piece (which is too long to post even in part): "They didn't see what we were doing as materially different from local TV news—that was depressing. People don't associate investigative reporting with us, but with local news. They see what we do as no different from 'Could this pastrami sandwich kill you? Could this screen door harm your child? Tune in at ten!' They don't see any difference between an investigative reporter and a blow-dried idiot." "This is what journalists in the mainstream media are starting to worry about: what if people don't believe in us, don't want us, anymore?" I would very much like to hear what Liberalhawk and .com have to say about this article. |
| Posted by:Secret Master |
| #21 Fox is better.... but not much. At least Fox attempts to give both sides of the story and let you decide for yourself. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-02-15 10:43:04 PM |
| #20 nobody likes me, everybody hates me, excellent commentary above. "They didnât see what we were doing as materially different from local TV news TV news? Ha! They flatter themselves. I was forced to watch CNN the other day and had to laugh. It's like they are trying to compete with Oprah or Enquirer, rather than do news. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-02-15 10:16:21 PM |
| #19 In the end left a bad taste.Whaky examples arent the issue and he spends a good chunk of paragraphs with them. Maybe to dismiss the complains. |
| Posted by: z man 2005-02-15 9:09:44 PM |
| #18 Smells like someone still hasn't figured out Jefferson's concept of the 'consent of the govern'. Conglomerate business organizations can protect you from the consequences of your behavior only for so long. |
| Posted by: Uneagum Wheremp9442 2005-02-15 6:47:17 PM |
| #17 One only needs to pick up a copy of the LA Times or any major paper to see the bias. In the smaller markets it's even worse. It not just what stories they pick to cover it's how they do it. What astounds me is that these people who claim to report without bias actually write almost everything dripping with bias. If they can make a negative comment or aspersion about a conservative agenda or personage they will. They can't seem to help themselves. When the Democrat party/liberals decide they have a issue they want to bring forward the press is always ready and willing to write glowingly about the issue and help to promote it. It's rare that a Republican/conservative issue gets that kind of coverage. If there is any coverage at all it's negative. When a liberal personality is covered it is all most always positive. If a conservative personality is covered it's bound to be unflattering. The latest meme is âWhat liberal media?â What complete and utter bull shit. They have blogs in their sights now they seem to be losing control of the information base. They have fear of the people who have the power to verify their Tranzi lies. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2005-02-15 5:53:58 PM |
| #16 It could be as simple as some people actually take offense at being lied to, patronized by know-nothing children, and manipulated by editorial agenda management. It is, .com; that sums up nicely why I haven't bought the Boston Globe in, oh, about ten years or so. |
| Posted by: Raj 2005-02-15 5:01:26 PM |
| #15 Yeah, and it won me a Pulitzer. Me and Stalin talk about it all the time down here when the locusts aren't eating our eyeballs... |
| Posted by: The Ghost of Walter Duranty 2005-02-15 4:45:41 PM |
| #14 Sorry, Someone, but you must go back to 1931 for that. Walter "There is no famine in the Ukraine" Duranty of the New York Times was the original waterboy for the Marxist-Leninist crowd. |
| Posted by: Dreadnought 2005-02-15 4:34:06 PM |
| #13 Cyber Sarge: Forget that stuff. How 'bout the truth about Vietnam? The original sin of the left media. |
| Posted by: someone 2005-02-15 4:20:49 PM |
| #12 Well said Angie. If you see yourself in opposition to (certain) political and business interests, you start out partisan with a 'the world as a conspiracy' mindset. Conspiracies are a literary device that avoids explaining the complexities of the real world. People who think the world is driven by conspiracies can't separate fact from fiction. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-02-15 4:19:51 PM |
| #11 It could be as simple as some people actually take offense at being lied to, patronized by know-nothing children, and manipulated by editorial agenda management. Once I finally figured out that Walter Crankcase was not only an asshole, but a bona-fide conspiracy moonbat with less intellectual power than my last dog, well, you could say the shine had worn off. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-02-15 4:06:25 PM |
| #10 Why is everyone mad at the mainstream media? DAN "Times New Roman" RATHER
EASON "The Soldiers Are Firing At Me" JORDAN
|
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-02-15 3:58:41 PM |
| #9 I think at least the writer gets 'it', but I doubt the rest of the MSM gets 'it'. Whenever they trot out the worst of right, take things out of context, or try to manufacture a conspiracy they lose a little more standing. They (MSM) need to really clean up their act if they want to rebuild their reputation. How about an OBJECTIVE story on the vote in Iraq, Social Security, or the Patriot Act? All GOOD stories that were painted in the worst possible light. According the MSM: They vote was a failure, Social Security is ok, and the Patriot Act destroys civil liberties. Gee I wonder why the right is bolting to FNC where stories are fair and balanced. |
| Posted by: Cyber Sarge 2005-02-15 3:50:32 PM |
#8 Angie, this quote is true:Journalism that is inquisitive and intellectually honest, that surprises and unsettles, didnât always exist...there are political and business interests that would be better off if it didnât exist and that have worked hard to undermine it.The New York Times, the Democratic party, CNN et al. are working hard to undermine bloggers. |
| Posted by: someone 2005-02-15 3:49:06 PM |
| #7 Sigh. Check this out, from near the end: ...there is [a] possibility, which is much more worrisome, at least to journalists who work in the mainstream media. It is that...their compact with the public has been seriously damaged. Journalism that is inquisitive and intellectually honest, that surprises and unsettles, didnât always exist...there are political and business interests that would be better off if it didnât exist and that have worked hard to undermine it. Attention journalists: this is much of your problem, summed up right here. First, you assume that journalism must "surprise" and "unsettle". Therefore, the choice of what is journalism will depend on what journalists find surprising and unsettling. The BBC had a couple of "Have Your Say" pages on the Iraqi elections. Many people said things of the order, "Oh, they have elections, but they have no water, no electricity, no schools." But they do! Why didn't these people know that? Because you didn't report it. Because "Iraqi electricity production back to pre-war levels" wasn't a surprising or unsettling enough headline for you. Second, you see your critics as "political and business interests". Ah ha! They only want to tear you down for their own gain! And not only that, if you have alarmed the sinister and unnamed "interests", you must be doing things right! It never occurs to you that some of your critics may be just people with legitimate grievances. |
| Posted by: Angie Schultz 2005-02-15 3:40:06 PM |
| #6 I quit halfway through. I too thought it was condescending and whining in tone. |
| Posted by: Xbalanke 2005-02-15 3:39:28 PM |
| #5 I used to think that journalists were just ignorant. I now think a lot of the time they are deliberately deceitful. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-02-15 3:38:09 PM |
| #4 An establishment liberal not understanding conservatism is hardly news. What's interesting here is what's left out: blogs. They're really an alternate engine of editorial judgments, which is what's feeding impatience with the stale and one-sided judgments (that one-trick 'X oppresses Y' story, endlessly) of the MSM. Technology changes expectations. All we need from the MSM machinery now is facts. The rest is irritating because superfluous -- and distorting. |
| Posted by: someone 2005-02-15 3:35:58 PM |
| #3 Yep, RC, time to break out that nano-violin. There was also the implication that all conservatives were the same as the nuttiest of the letter writers. There was no sense that he really understands the issue of bias that an almost unanimous liber environment brings in the choice of stories, headlines and content positioning. Yep, just more of the poor, poor me routine with only the faintest hint of a clue. This line is a great example "If mainstream journalists find it annoying that conservatives think of them as unalterably hostile, they find it just as annoying that liberals think of them as the friend who keeps letting them down. " Um guys, if the liberals think of you as a friend maybe it means that you, too, are predominantly liberal. 99.9% pure BS |
| Posted by: AlanC 2005-02-15 3:28:15 PM |
| #2 I don't think journalism will ever recover once the comparison of how long it takes to train a plumber to be a journalist versus how long it takes to train a journalist to be a plumber reaches the general populace. After all, how long does it take to train a blogger? |
| Posted by: Mrs. Davis 2005-02-15 1:51:36 PM |
| #1 I thought the article suffered from too much "poor, poor journalist" crap. Journalism, as a profession, is rotten. Until they recognize it, and start to deal with it, they'll get nothing but contempt from me. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-02-15 1:46:56 PM |