| |
MediaGuardian.co.uk | Media | Bushwhacked
by Decius at 10:49 pm EST, Jan 14, 2003 |
] To some extent, journalists have felt obliged to tone
] down criticisms because of the sense of shared national
] purpose after September 11. Even that cannot explain how
] the papers cravenly ignored the Trent Lott story. Lott,
] the veteran senator from Mississippi, made his pro-
] segregation statement on a Thursday, in full earshot of
] the Washington press corps. The Times and Post both
] failed to mention it. Indeed, it was almost totally
] ignored until the following Tuesday, kept alive until
] then only by a handful of bloggers. If there is a
] Watergate scandal lurking in this administration, it is
] unlikely to be Woodward or his colleagues who will tell
] us about it. If it emerges, it will probably come out on
] the web. That is a devastating indictment of the state of
] American newspapers. While the Guardian is certainly not to be known as a bastion of objectivity, this screed on the state of American journalism feels honest and sensible. The implications segway directly into some of the commentary I've offered here about the relationship between weblogs and the press. |
| |
RE: MediaGuardian.co.uk | Media | Bushwhacked
by Rattle at 4:55 pm EST, Jan 15, 2003 |
Decius wrote:
] While the Guardian is certainly not to be known as a bastion
] of objectivity, this screed on the state of American
] journalism feels honest and sensible. The implications segway
] directly into some of the commentary I've offered here about
] the relationship between weblogs and the press. I liked this article, it hit upon a number of things that I feel are on target. As one journalism professor I had liked to repeat over and over, the existance of the objective press is a myth. But thats another discussion, more fitting to attach to some op-ed peice about post-modernism, objective truth, or some shit like that. There were a number of points in this article that could be expanded upon.. Personally, I feel that the rise of JOAs and the subsequent fall in the number of competing newspapers have lead to most of these problems. Less voices mean less discussion. There is (almost) a complete shortage of independent voice within the newspaper industry. No incentive to take risks. All the newspapers have their carved out distribution area, in which little to no real competition exists, hence no incentive to do anything other then the status quo. Gannet has no incentive to take risks, they just provide the news summary they got off the wire, give it a local spin, and push it out. The complete lack of diversity within the newspaper industry will be its own downfall. Its not its own beast anymore, its a child of a bigger parent. Or maybe its just because newspapers used to be the place in society where ideas were pubicly debated and discussed, and thats not the case anymore.. Television and the Internet form the ecosystems in which that debate now takes place. Hence, the medium does not serve the same function it did a few decades ago. Rendered irrelevant by the evolution of technology, communication, and the passage of time.. Retooled to serve as a summary sheet for reading on the bus. Its not going to bring me to tears, I'd rather save the trees. All that being said, there still are a number of newspapers that matter.. But I feel that number will continue to shrink.. And in the end its not the newspapers that matter, but rather the people writing the articles that matter. They will be ported to other mediums where their output can be better targeted, discussed, etc.. |
|
| |
RE: MediaGuardian.co.uk | Media | Bushwhacked
by Reknamorken at 10:05 pm EST, Jan 15, 2003 |
Decius wrote:
] While the Guardian is certainly not to be known as a bastion
] of objectivity, this screed on the state of American
] journalism feels honest and sensible. The implications segway
] directly into some of the commentary I've offered here about
] the relationship between weblogs and the press. What periodical is a bastion of objectivity? |
|
| | |
RE: MediaGuardian.co.uk | Media | Bushwhacked
by Decius at 12:40 am EST, Jan 16, 2003 |
Reknamorken wrote:
] What periodical is a bastion of objectivity? OK, you got me there. |
|
| | | |
RE: MediaGuardian.co.uk | Media | Bushwhacked
by Reknamorken at 1:52 pm EST, Jan 16, 2003 |
Decius wrote:
] Reknamorken wrote:
] ] What periodical is a bastion of objectivity?
]
] OK, you got me there. Oh... I thought you had a periodical you knew of. I guess I feel rather partial to the periodicals that don't hide their slant. The mainstream media that pretends to objectivity (and which some people actually believe) offends me. |
|
MediaGuardian.co.uk | Media | Bushwhacked
by Rattle at 7:32 pm EST, Jan 14, 2003 |
] To some extent, journalists have felt obliged to tone
] down criticisms because of the sense of shared national
] purpose after September 11. Even that cannot explain how
] the papers cravenly ignored the Trent Lott story. Lott,
] the veteran senator from Mississippi, made his pro-
] segregation statement on a Thursday, in full earshot of
] the Washington press corps. The Times and Post both
] failed to mention it. Indeed, it was almost totally
] ignored until the following Tuesday, kept alive until
] then only by a handful of bloggers. If there is a
] Watergate scandal lurking in this administration, it is
] unlikely to be Woodward or his colleagues who will tell
] us about it. If it emerges, it will probably come out on
] the web. That is a devastating indictment of the state of
] American newspapers. |
|
|
