Article

2004-04-02 Home Front: Culture Wars

A quest for more sensation is killing journalism

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by rkb 2004-04-02 1:25:01 PM|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 "...now news - old-fashioned and solid - is a rare species in a world coarsened by simplistic generalisations about good and evil."

Part of the problem is that the press thinks that good and evil are simplistic generalities, rather than easily described and obviously identifiable attributes.

Is there any doubt about the evil-ness of the scum animals in Fallujah, Kim Jong Il, Saddam, etc.? Not to us simple non-media types, there isn't.

Posted by Hyper 2004-04-02 2:50:49 PM|| 2004-04-02 2:50:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Isn't the fact that the Beeb is missing from his article somewhat GLARING? I heard their new leader took over the reins today, so I am surprised by this omission...

Posted by .com 2004-04-02 3:00:45 PM|| 2004-04-02 3:00:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Killing journalism, hell - it committed suicide a long time ago. I know more about true journalism from my mid-1960's high school class that the "mainstream" clowns do today.

The "journalists" (read: leftists) think they' just naturally smarter than we common folk are, but I think it's the other way around.

Posted by Barbara Skolaut 2004-04-02 7:05:04 PM|| 2004-04-02 7:05:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 I see the problem here as way more then they will admit. We've seen this argument before, and only couched in these terms before, but it's not the real problem.
Pick up most of your newspapers in the US and you will see that their stories come from the AP, Reuters, and maybe one or two other new sources, except for local news. And that is it.
But this business model is dead, dead, dead.
Rantburg gives out more news better and faster than the New York Times! My own personal links page gives me the AP wire THREE DAYS before I see those articles in the local paper, which I don't even bother to read anymore, even for the comics.
I've even suggested to professional journalists that they should be scouring the Internet, surfing like there's no tomorrow to get the REAL news.
Their responses: variations on "Oh, that's just NOT DONE. Tut, tut! Not sporting and all!"

Hooey. Their business models are more stagnant than are the RIAA's. These are the same people who were utterly shocked when USA Today started to publish. They just couldn't believe it--too radical--it's just NOT DONE.
USA Today? There was nothing radical about it at all, really, except their pea brains just couldn't handle the idea of something different and better.

Bah. Long live the new flesh.

Posted by Anonymous 2004-04-02 8:20:00 PM|| 2004-04-02 8:20:00 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 Lol! Killer post, Anonymous. Pick a posting nym and stick around!

Your analysis certainly strikes me as dead right - there are actually very few sources from which a majority of stories are merely repeated... and the bias from these sources is breathtaking. When they actually do stories themselves, the editorial agenda customarily mirrors that same bias.

And, like you, so many of us have bailed out and decided to seek it out on our own. As someone who was once married to a print reporter, I have a special interest in what's transpiring - mainly thanks to bloggers. Again, please stick around!

Posted by .com 2004-04-02 8:28:15 PM|| 2004-04-02 8:28:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Anon, I'm with Dotcom--Megadittos!
I quit taking my local rag not long after 9/11 when I realized how slow and untimely the news was and how Liberal Left the slant.
I knew I was reading it only for the obits and found that kind of creepy! I've been to enough funerals anyway.

Posted by Jen 2004-04-02 8:50:44 PM|| [http://www.greatestjeneration.com] 2004-04-02 8:50:44 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 I lost all faith in the newspapers during late 80's I was "quoted" in various local papers(little stuff-man in street,opening new store).In each case the reporter taped my comments and the words in paper were not what I had said.In one instance the "quote" was so wrong,that I complained to paper,and was told in essence,so what?.
The NYT has stated that the official position of paper on quotes,is if printed version reflects what person meant it is ok to use qoutation marks,even if those were not actual words used by person.And they wonder why the mass media has lost respect of American public.

Posted by Stephen 2004-04-02 9:01:36 PM|| 2004-04-02 9:01:36 PM|| Front Page Top

19:05 Anonymous4100
11:40 ex-lib
10:46 Anonymous4020
22:18 .com
21:31 Anonymous3999
13:16 Valentine
13:03 Zenster
01:25 .com
00:50 Beau
00:49 Bomb-a-rama
00:34 Zenster
00:18 Zenster
23:48 Zenster
23:43 Barbara Skolaut
23:29 .com
23:17 Phil_B
23:07 Anonymous2U
23:04 Anonymous2U
23:03 RWV
22:59 True German Ally
22:56 Alaska Paul
22:51 Traveller
22:44 Jen
22:44 Edward Yee