Friday, February 11, 2005

For Whom the Blog Tolls: Death of MSM

*****


you understand what's happening, but you don't know what's going on Posted by Hello

[See UPDATE EDIT 2-13-2005 at bottom of this post for info on resignation of Eason Jordan of CNN and the role of bloggers.]


It's becoming clearer every passing day.

The Main Stream Media (MSM) is dying, and it's death spasms are hideously grotesque.

Not all Main Stream Media outlets are diseased and decomposing. But it's painfully obvious which ones have collapsed through sheer weight of deception, incompetence, and negative points of view.


DECEPTION
: Manufacturing news stories where none exist...or where the truth is contrary to their bias.

For example:
Early reports on the Iraq elections by CNN, showing old footage of insurgent attacks, blood and bombings, with people grieving in the streets. Wishful thinking? This was total untruth, while there was some disruption by insurgents, CNN had to create a gruesome fairy tale of blood and gore where none existed.

Don't tell me they felt compelled to "report on what has happened and might happen again."They must hate peace, harmony, courage, and success in anything that runs contrary to their POV. Screw them, I say. I don't care what they think: CNN stinks.

INCOMPETENCE: Rathergate. Need I say more?

Malcolm Muggeridge once said, "News is old things happening to new people."

I would re-state that as: "Main Stream Media news is [often enough] bad things happening that aren't bad and aren't happening."

Someone else said, I seem to recall it was on C-SPAN, one of the outlets that is vigorously healthy from incorporating left, right, middle, and non-partisan perspectives:

"If you hear negative news reports about a situation somewhere in the world, then silence, no reports at all, you can safely assume that things are going well, the problem was successfully solved, the situation is stable and pacified. Hence, the Main Stream Media refuse to report on it. They abhor good news."


NEGATIVE POINTS OF VIEW: Now we're back to the early coverage of the Iraq elections, and you can add basically any news story you wish.

You can even see grim consternation on the faces of television news reporters when something actually goes well somewhere in the world, and they have to cover it.

Watch how desperately they search for negative needles in the haystack of good news.

Listen to them pathetically attempt to throw cold water on any enthusiasm for positive reporting: "...but observers state that things may not continue so well, since [blah blah blah]." It's formulaic, applied to all news reports.

Anti-Blog Bias

And now we have Michael Standaert in a Los Angeles Times book review, dated February 11, 2005.

http://www.latimes.com

His review, entitled "Less Reformation, more refraction," in discussing Hugh Hewitt's book BLOG, states this ridiculuously biased and false report:

Though at times Hewitt makes important points about how blogs have kept scandals such as Rathergate and Sen. Trent Lott's flub over Strom Thurmond's segregationist past in the public eye, his fanatical fervor leads him down the path of triumphalist bombast.

Without traditional media to feed off of, there would be little for most political bloggers to link to and comment on. Certainly the emergence of blogs and blogging as public watchdogs of media is beneficial to correcting inconsistencies, fabrications and outright lies. But Lott's and Rather's own miscues and ethical lapses were what ultimately brought them down — not bloggers. It was up to USA Today, part of that liberal mainstream media, to uncover the scandal that journalist Armstrong Williams was being paid by the Department of Education to talk up the federal "No Child Left Behind" program — not bloggers.

The other fallacy is that blogging will supplant mainstream media and that the emergence of blogs will be similar to the outcome the invention of the printing press had on furthering the Reformation by giving common folk access to the Bible in their own languages. There are cases to be made about how the blogging revolution will change mainstream media habits and dissemination, but unfortunately Hewitt's "independent" position advocates right-wing, corporate or advertisement blogging and not independence as such.


Er...has the honorable illuminary, saint Michael Standaert ever actually visited any political or journalist blogs, on the right or the left?

I want to make it clear, I do not give a flying fig about politics. I think politics is for people who are scared of psychology. They seek to discuss society at large, due to habitual avoidance of individual psychopathology.

Anyway, bloggers are discussing the demise of the Main Stream Media a lot LESS than the narcissistic media zombies think. The focus is not on them. There are actual large-scale problems the right and left political-journalist bloggers are addressing.

It's unfair to right, left, and middle political spectrum bloggers to say they link to and comment on, primarily, the foibles of the "traditional media".

I'm so accustomed to reading blogs, I was actually startled that after reading dumb ass Michael Standaert's ignorant assessment of Hugh Hewitt's book, I discovered I could not make a comment on the review.

"Where's the Post a Comment on This Story function?!?!" I mumbled to myself in an irritated tone of mental voice.

"Oh, I forgot, the Main Stream Media doesn't like interaction or input from readers, unless it's a paltry letter or two, carefully snipped and controlled."

To not be able to voice my opinion seemed arrogant of the online version of this newspaper.

Adios, MSM.

Bob Dylan never had many compliments for traditional media.

Check out this lyric from song "Idiot Wind" in LP recording BLOOD ON THE TRACKS (copyright 1974 CBS, Inc.):

Idiot Wind
blowing every time
you move your mouth,
blowing down the back roads
heading south.

Idiot Wind
blowing through
the bowels of the tombs,
blowing through
the curtains in your rooms.

Idiot Wind
blowing every time
you move your teeth.
You're an Idiot Wind.
It's a wonder that
you still know how to breathe.


Hear that bell tolling the death knell?

Wake up Main Stream Media.

You're an Idiot Wind.

It's time for your funeral.



[UPDATE EDIT 2-13-2005]

From CNN.com
CNN Reliable Sources program
"Eason Jordan Resigns"
Aired 2-13-2005 at 11:30 ET

http://transcripts.cnn.com/
TRANSCRIPTS/0502/13/rs.01.html

CNN.com states (in shouting all caps):

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT.
THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS
FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

I like this though. I often do the same, like I did with this UPDATE EDIT. I often update, revise, correct, add links to my blog posts.


Here's a segment of the transcript, in which the discussion is on the resignation of CNN's Eason Jordan, how he lied about U.S. military troops "targeting" (i.e., shooting with guns and killing) MSM journalists), how bloggers are destroying the MSM, and related issues:

JARVIS: We didn't fire him [Eason Jordan], the bloggers. CNN did. I agree it doesn't fit the crime, because we don't know the crimes that are in CNN's heart here. Something else happened here that we don't know. The story's not over. We have to see that transcript from Davos. There's no reason for that to be hidden still, and CNN has to realize that they have to tell us more of what's going on.

The problem here is that by just asking for the truth, knocking at the doors of the news temple and saying, tell us what's go on, we're being portrayed as a lynch mob. We're not. We're citizens wanting to know the truth. It used to be the job of journalists to report that. So let's get to the truth, let's get to the facts. I think if Jordan had come right out and said, I'm sorry, I blew it, I was wrong, I didn't mean to say that, he wouldn't have made any more friends that he has now, but he still would be at his job.

KURTZ: Bill Press, let me just briefly touch on the substance. Did Eason Jordan have a point but used the wrong words, in the sense that there have been instances of military overzealousness, for example, the U.S. shelling of the Palestine hotel, a known haven for international journalists where two were killed? There have been incidents like that that have certainly been troubling to the people in the media.

PRESS: I believe he simply misspoke. I think what he was trying to say, having come back from Baghdad is, look, this is dangerous territory, there are 63 journalists who have been killed -- either killed because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or they happened to get caught in the crossfire, or they were mistaken for the enemy.

I do not believe that the United States military targets or would ever target American or any other journalist. At the same time, I have to admit I didn't think we'd ever torture prisoners at Abu Ghraib either.

KURTZ: OK, David Gergen.

GERGEN: I just want to say, I agree with Jeff Jarvis on one fundamental point, and that is the bloggers serve an enormously important purpose as citizens in a town square asking for more accountability from people in power. I think that is a valuable role to play in our society. In this case, I have to say, Jeff, while there were bloggers who were simply getting at the truth, I think there was also a quality of vigilante justice building up among some of the bloggers who wanted his head.

JARVIS: You got a good point there. There were two issues for this with the bloggers. One is CNN's history with covering this war and the military in general. And the second was Jordan's own history here. And yes, there were some who just don't like him and nothing would make them like him. But those of us who wrote -- I wrote about this on my blog as a media story, because it is.

KURTZ: OK. I'm going to...

JARVIS: I think today "The New York Times" is very embarrassed that they didn't write about it beforehand.

KURTZ: I'm going to let you expand on that when we turn to our next part of the discussion.

Another resignation driven by bloggers just this week. Jeff Gannon, an openly conservative reporter writing for two Web sites, TalonNews and the clearly partisan GOPUSA.com, drew fire after asking President Bush this inaccurate and somewhat loaded question.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

J.D. "JEFF GANNON" GUCKERT, TALON NEWS: Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. Harry Reid was talking about soup lines, and Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. How are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: Gannon quit after liberal bloggers revealed his real name and his registration of several sexually provocative online Web addresses that he never turned into Web sites. Gannon, who said he and his family were being harassed, defended his work on CNN's "WOLF BLITZER REPORTS."



VTG CONCLUSION:

The Main Stream Media (MSM) is a joke and seems to have a self-immolating death wish.

Arrogant idiots in the MSM keep standing up, proclaiming a blatant lie, drawing attention to themselves as con men, then getting slaughtered by the blogosphere.

Are the MSM journalists suicidal?

Do they want the blogosphere to put them out of their misery?

MSM: wake up and smell the coffin.

3 comments:

Rod Stanton said...

Very good.

sam said...

Hey man, good post, although people need to be informed of the bad news in the world, as well as the good.

Also, we live in a society where violence is glamorized, whether it be through movies, music, games etc. The old mindset of, "if it bleeds it leads."

I certainly think the media has its problems, many problems, *coughs*foxnews*coughs* but that doesn't mean media is dying

Media is essential for our country and maybe, just maybe, us bloggers are the future.

steven edward streight said...

Like we don't get a steady diet of bad news, bad slants on good news, and bad fact-checking on all news.

Yes many arms of the media are indeed dying.

Blogs also are dying, they are not the Miracle Cure for anything, but they did help some idiots fall faster.

It's not the communication vehicle that will save the day, it's what we the people do with it.

Gutenberg printing press gave us the Bible, Plato, Freud, and Derrida in many languages, but it has also given us garbage like Harry Potter, National Enquirer, Rules for Revolution by Guy Kawasaki, and Dean Koontz "novels".

Television brings us both C-SPAN (good) and Jerry Springer (awful).

Blogs give us more info choices, and much faster reactions and reports, than the outmoded, clueless television network news departments.

But I'm not against everything the Big 3 TV Networks do. They all have some good in them, somewhere.

"Us bloggers": who are you calling "bloggers"?

I'm not a "blogger", I'm a blogologist, one who studies blogs.

The only reason I operate blogs is because I haven't started my wikis yet.