A Hyperpartisan Press Or Blogosphere.
Listening to O'Reilly talking with Lanny Davis. Both are bemoaning a partisan press & media.
The debate is assumes a chimera a non-existent beast. Actually it isn't a chimera as a non-partisan press did exist however briefly. Even then it was partisan but mildly so.
Right now the most damage to the press is coming from the idea of an unbiased press that reports just the facts. There is no such thing as an unbiased press. The big MSM try to pretend they are moderate in the middle or report just the facts but it isn't true. If they would admit it they could free themselves from their shackles and probably come up with better bottom lines.
Jonah Goldberg sometime ago wrote an article for National Review Online that made the argument. He noted it was only from the '50s to the mid-'60s or so that a "moderate" press developed. The reason he argues is the same reason the big beers are brewed to a less than distinctive taste, they appeal to the broadest array of people.
However, now in the days of micro-brews people can choose the beer that suits their taste the best. Same too with the media, people now do not have a choice of just three channels. Not only three channels but like a dozen news channels, radio stations of all sorts, and of course the Internet.
Jonah also argues in the days before the emergence of mass media most media outlets had a distinct political agenda and did not hide that. If you were a Democrat you bought Paper X and not paper Y.
You know I don't mind Dan Rather has an opinion but I do mind he tries to tell he doesn't and is reporting just (bogus) facts.
The debate is assumes a chimera a non-existent beast. Actually it isn't a chimera as a non-partisan press did exist however briefly. Even then it was partisan but mildly so.
Right now the most damage to the press is coming from the idea of an unbiased press that reports just the facts. There is no such thing as an unbiased press. The big MSM try to pretend they are moderate in the middle or report just the facts but it isn't true. If they would admit it they could free themselves from their shackles and probably come up with better bottom lines.
Jonah Goldberg sometime ago wrote an article for National Review Online that made the argument. He noted it was only from the '50s to the mid-'60s or so that a "moderate" press developed. The reason he argues is the same reason the big beers are brewed to a less than distinctive taste, they appeal to the broadest array of people.
However, now in the days of micro-brews people can choose the beer that suits their taste the best. Same too with the media, people now do not have a choice of just three channels. Not only three channels but like a dozen news channels, radio stations of all sorts, and of course the Internet.
Jonah also argues in the days before the emergence of mass media most media outlets had a distinct political agenda and did not hide that. If you were a Democrat you bought Paper X and not paper Y.
You know I don't mind Dan Rather has an opinion but I do mind he tries to tell he doesn't and is reporting just (bogus) facts.
posted by Marcus Aurelius at 10:38 PM
<< Home