Ah, the immortal words of the Who. It seems that the most recent shrill cries from the left over the ERBA's (Evil, Religious Bush Administration) sinister influence over our happy nation have once again proven themselves hollow.
In e-Skeptic, Michael Shermer reports on being spoofed by a liberal, anti-Bush group PEER. The group claimed that officials at the Grand Canyon were being pressured to no longer reveal the geological age of the canyon.
I though this smelled funny when I noticed it's aroma on one of my favorite blogs. And yet this claim has proven to be utterly false.
What sort of retractions and apologies for this obvious slander are forthcoming?
Well, don't hold your breath.
The same can be said for folks like Rep. John Murtha and his comments on the behavior of US troops overseas. My comments and ire are not meant to deny or whitewash any of the unacceptable actions or behaviors of government and military personnel. They are simply to point out that our media lives and dies on hyperbole and rhetoric. Once the story is written and sold, no one cares to make sure it's correct.
The public, alas, is too consumed with the drama (or not) to care to look deeper. This is to the detriment of our nation and society, just as it is to those who see only one side of the anti-Western menality which so pervades much of the developing world.
Meet the new boss, the same as the old boss...
7 comments:
Also reference Don Henley and Dirty Laundry.....a much more apt reference here I think.
(But really, would you agree that in a market driven economy this is the kind of news that is reported because this is what sells papers/ratings/generates advertising dollars???? Another argument that new reporting should be free from corporate/market driven factors if we want accurate, unbiased reporting....)
Oh yeah....SNOW DAY!!!!!!! whoohoo...
But if you want a "unbiased" source of news, how do you support it? Do you require all media to contribute to a C-SPAN type approach?
Even C-SPAN has bias issues.
Good question. But also, do you think there is LESS competition in the industry now, what with GE owning NBC, Disney owning ABC, etc., etc., and the news not being run really by the old-school journalists, but rather by the entertainment side of the business? Is Fox News unbiased, or just a sounding board for the political sensiblities of Rupurt Murdoch? The Post is a shadow of its former self without Kaye Graham, and Bill Paley ran CBS with an iron fist...somehow, in the past, even though there was sensationlist news abounding, for the most part,with some glaring exceptions,(William Randolph Hearst not withstanding) it really did seem to report the news, not the runaway bride, kidnapped boy found was he sexually abused, bread and circuses of today. Or am I being overly idealistic and simplistic?
First thing we learned in journalism writing class - there is NO SUCH THING as unbiased writing, period.
The press has never been unbiased. The media has always reflected the thoughts of the few editors controlling the paper. It is actually less likely that GE is exerting editorial control over its media divisions than when Hearst ran his papers.
No, my friend, the world was never as rosy as you may be seeing it in the rear view mirror.
This is a great read on the issue, Click!
Sigh. Why do I feel that all of a sudden you lost respect for me and my optimistic and nostalgic world view? Just because I bought a damn truck....
Sonic is right -- there's no such thing as unbiased anything in human life. As What's-His-Name (small senior moment here) pointed out in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, a new paradigm is finally adopted when all those who adhere to the old paradigm have died. Back when the MSM still did journalism, one of the caveats was always know the biases of the paper you're reading.
That's not really what we're talking about here, and Scoot, I think, has it at least part right -- the news is now a business. However, there's also the sad fact that too many reporters are not doing their jobs. They're not only not asking hard questions of their sources, they're not asking any questions at all. I see that as one of the chief values of the blogosphere -- whatever you say, you'd better cross your Ts and dot your Is, because someone on some blog is going to find the fact you didn't. You still have to know people's biases, but that's not so hard to figure out.
Keep in mind, for example, that there are some of us who consider the Bush administration a malignant disaster, not because of what Kos says (I don't even read Kos), but because of what Bush has done. When I find someone on the right who can point to Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi from the same basis, then I will listen. But it most likely will not be Fox News.
Post a Comment