Media matters
Brummett is on a rant about the modern media -- from Katie Couric to the use of the Internet to force unsubstantiated, irrelevant or simply false information into political discourse of the mainstream media. As, he notes, his very own rant has done.
Nowadays you have the Internet where raw, blind partisanship finds its outlet for unfiltered "free expression." You have newspapers regurgitating the partisan, anonymous and libelous outrages of the Internet. You have a television network hiring a right-winger to make up a movie that it airs as solemn fact about 9-11. You have another television network culminating the transformation from somber news to trivial celebrity by making a perky woman the nightly news anchorperson and having her flash a little leg while she invites viewers to come up with a signature sign-off for her.



Comments
Bush and the Chickenhawks lied, Troops died, Poor Parents cried!
http://tinyurl.com/542jm
Posted by: Riverdog
|
September 18, 2006 06:25 AM
The level of coordination between Sanders/Coalition for Arkansas' Future/Republican Party of Arkansas/ArkFam is disheartening, perhaps the Sanders element most of all.
Whereas the ArkBlog elevates the level of discourse and analysis, Orval and I have no beef with slinging the shit right back at them. Our parody video of the anti-gay/Beebe commercial is up right now.
http://www.greasycreek.org
Posted by: Sam Faubus
|
September 18, 2006 06:33 AM
All network/print news sucks JB especially ABC/NBC & FOX. Sure Catie isn't the greatest but she is the new kid/female on the block but I believe she possesses that old American character that we, the senior majority, liked to mimic in the old days.
Quite frankly NBC's Brian Williams makes my hemorrhoids flare up; after the partisan 9/11 fiasco mini-series ABC is hell bent on becoming as un-credible as FOX, CNN/MSNBC are just to partisans in the pot winging unsubstantiated news with arrogance. Then there is FOX the spin master and mouth piece for the intolerable 30% of weird Americans who are in direct communication with their God/Satin/Dubya and Allah knows who else.
As far as the print media is concerned most of it sucks as well. Who in their right mind would waste their time reading the D-G unless they don't have an alternative.
I agree with you John there is a lot of bad stuff on the net but you just have to learn to separate the good from the bad and there is a lot of good stuff.
Posted by: BWC
|
September 18, 2006 09:23 AM
I saw a mention of "Fair and Balanced" the other day in something that was talking above evolution vs. creationism. The idea was that creationism ought to be in school books to make them "fair and balanced."
We've seen the same thing with global warming. A viewpoint held by, say, 1% of the population is pushed forward so that ideas and theories will be "fair and balanced" when that is anything but the case.
If I said that the world was going to turn into a block of ice tomorrow, or that the world was created by a race of aliens looking for a breeding ground, does that mean I can force those ideas into the mainstream by insisting that I be treated in a "fair and balanced" manner?
Posted by: Roland
|
September 18, 2006 12:28 PM
"Fair and Balanced" has NOTHING to do with facts and the truth. With facts, there is no balance, facts just are.
Here are some interesting links that show just how consolidated our media is these days:
All in one picture:
http://www.mediachannel.org/ownership/chart.shtml
In an interactive text form:
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/
We have the Republicans to thank for media consolidation and the crap that we have to "choose" from that all looks alike.
Free Speech TV (FSTV) and LinkTV are better channels in many ways, since they are not supported by the corporate masters. Democracy Now! is really good.
Posted by: rablib
|
September 19, 2006 03:24 PM
By the way, I should mention that Democracy Now! will report on ANYONE that is in the news, no matter what their political or non-political leanings are. They invite EVERYONE to the table, but often the conservatives refuse to come because they know they will be asked the hard questions openly.
It's interesting how the liberals are often fine with the hard questions, and honestly try to answer them, but the conservatives aren't as much. There are some that come on, like John Dean that worked with the Nixon administration, who appear to be honest and forthright. (I imagine I will get flamed by our resident neocons for mentioning him.)
I like those kinds of conservatives, that actually want to do things like conserve the environment for the future and balance the budget without hurting the lower class people. Remember them? The honest ones that just like to be cautious? They were great, and helpful when it comes to figuring out the best way to do things. A person could work with them in a constructive way.
Posted by: rablib
|
September 19, 2006 03:50 PM