« ObamaNation's Big Question | Main | Ruminations - 22oct2009 (updated 23oct09) »

19 October 2009

Comments

Russ Steele

The attack on FOX is backfiring as more and more people are tuning into FOX to see what all the fuss is about and staying for a the real news.

The New York Times continues to layoff the news room staff as readers seek alternative sources online and ad revenue sinks toward zero. Other big city newspapers are going out of business as they continue to cling to their political correctness and filter the news through a liberal lens.

The Liberal Democrats have to some something real soon now or there will no MSM to carry their message of gloom and doom.

Russ Steele

NEW YORK (AP) - Journalism is at risk and American society must act to preserve it. That's a key message in a new report co-authored by Len Downie, former executive editor of The Washington Post.
In a paper commissioned by the Columbia University Journalism School, Downie and Michael Schudson, a Columbia professor, argue the government, universities and nonprofit foundations should step in as newspapers suffer financially.

Among other steps, the authors recommend that the government ensure the tax code allows local news outlets to operate as non-profits. They urge philanthropic organizations to support local reporting. And they suggest a fund be established using fees from telecom or Internet providers for grants to innovative local news groups.

Wade

Things have gotten so bad that the MSM 'news journalists' are now fabricating quotes and attributing them to the President's apocryphal "college thesis." Oh wait, wrong MSM I guess...

Just a few points, George:

1) The true crime of the MSM is that they can be accurately described as "Wall to Wall Balloon Boy" rather than "Wall to Wall Adulation" of Obama.

2) Propaganda Czars? The last admin credentialed fake journalists in the WH press corps to throw Fleischer and McClellan propaganda pitches, attacks on other media, or just plain softballs until Jeff Gannon was outed as a gay hooker who "wrote" for a fictitious "news" organization. It also secretly paid other "journalists" to promote its policies. Propaganda is when the majority of a certain network's viewers believe that Iraq perpetrated 9/11, not when Anita Dunn says that that certain network is right-wing. Propaganda is organizing, promoting, and orchestrating teaparty / townhalls, then trying to pass off your own handiwork as "news."

3) Fox presents a "complete spectrum" of both the Republican party *and* the conservative movement, both the corporate supply-siders and the culture warriors are represented (with room for just plain crazy, all over the map stuff a la Beck). Juan Williams? Mara Liasson? Please. Those two are absurd as either "prominent" or "liberal." Try Howard Dean or Paul Krugman and I might attempt to take the "1 non-hard-right-conservative on a panel with 5 doctrinaire neo-cons" format more seriously.

4) Fox has high ratings? Higher than the other "news" networks? Interesting. The comparison is sort of an apples / oranges one if you do not assume that Fox News is actually "news." It is more accurately described as political infotainment. In the same sense, Rush Limbaugh isn't "news" either, he's a talk show host. Nearly all of FNC's newscasters are talk show hosts like Rush. Rush has high ratings too. If popular appeal is the yardstick of news quality, does that mean that People magazine is superior to The Economist? To Foreign Affairs? Do the comparative sales mean that a Big Mac is "better" than a porterhouse from Peter Luger in Brooklyn?

5) The Fairness Doctrine? I can't find any evidence that anyone is working on a new version. Either currently or over the last couple of years during which this meme has floated around unsupported.

6) If it's true that "Totalitarians have always mentored nascent tyrannies to grab the mass communications channels if they nurture any hope of taking control of a people.," and I believe that it is, what does that say about those who currently control the mass communication channels? What does it say about Rupert Murdoch?

7) So, no correction calls to Glenn Beck from the fantasied "person-i-invented-in-the-white-house-basement-assigned-to-watch-glenn-beck" means that EVERYTHING Glenn Beck said was TRUE? Because surely they would have called, right? That after all is EXACTLY what the prop phone is there for. Brilliant! Sort of. The best part is where the White House is supposed to call to correct the notion that someone in the White House is watching Glenn Beck all day, so that must be true too! I hereby PUBLICLY invite Beck to disprove the fact that he wears diapers. tick-tick-tick . What? Nothing? Thought so. Glenn Beck wears diapers. It is a proven fact.

8) I'm not sure any of the administration's statements about FNC qualify as "assaults" nor does their management of Presidential access for interviews. After all, George Bush wouldn't let the New York Times interview him ever. For 8 long years. It wasn't a "dictatorship" and it wasn't a 1st Amendment violation - just the famously thin-skinned Bush treating what he saw as a "left-wing" newspaper the way he saw fit. Just as he saw fit to not do press conferences like other modern presidents.

9) If FNC has all the ratings, doesn't that make it, kind of by definition, "mainstream?"

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad