That and many of the other criticisms in this thread of the main stream media are created by an expectation gap of reality and fantasy. The fantasy is that for Americans in general the news organizations exist to provide factual representation of a dialog in politics and events. The reality is that there is no such rule or expectation. The first amendment protects political speech along with expression (just ask Larry Flynt) for the media, person walking down the street, or even crazy people outside military funerals.Originally Posted by Adam L
The media in general (CNN to CBS) does not exist to provide balanced reporting. The expectation since Ben Franklin and the Federalist Papers is that there will be spin, cajoling, coordinated yellow screaming, nasty pitiful arrogant, caustic spin in the reporting to bend the will of the people. You don't have to like it but as Hurst said you go report it and I'll start the war (something like that).
Let's talk about the evening news. The early growth of the television market created this fantasy of balanced journalism. Whether we are talking about Walter Cronkite "The most trusted man in America", or Edward R. Murro "Goodnight and Goodluck" chasing the evil pixies of Macarthyism the reality is they all had biases. It is just people agreed with their biases. Who in the world would expect 18 minutes of content at an average of 45 seconds per story, 3 minutes for the big head line of the day, to have any relevance what so ever? Most of the Internet content from large media outlets is simply regurgitated hash done the same way because that is what they do. Only opinion pages are not given short shrift, and all of the large media outlets have shut down post-broadcast editorials. No more Edward Murro challenging our intellect or politics.
The editorial boards of most news organizations are egotistical, sycophantic, arrogant, back stabbing, advertiser driven, petty groups who see the world through a myopic view of journalistic furor. Rather than consider them the spinners of lies and untruths it is the volume of sifting and the shallow level they think that is the problem. Most of the news organizations have cut their staffs to near zero, the regurgitate AP and Reuters like great truth, and people drink even more from the desiccated teat of information.
The blogosphere isn't much better. I look at the top rated blogs by technocrati and other rating systems and what are they doing? They are rehashing AP and Reuters creating commentary on the stories in a vacuum of self censure and egoism. Most blogs take the mindless chatter and spew it forth just the same as the news organizations only with opinion embedded. The primary value of such being their nature to aggregate stories. There are very few places like Small Wars Journal that creates content that has had peer review layered to mitigate the mind numbing baseless arrogance found in the main stream media.
All of that said the media is working with one caveat exactly as planned. The signal to noise ratio is unbalanced by the existence of media conglomerates and centralized ownership. This creates an echo chamber of ideas as owners pick and choose staff based on their own biases. The public has a tendency to gravitate towards the agent they agree with rather than the one that provides better reporting. Thus we see diatribes against The Clinton Network News (CNN), and the I won't say it (FOX) news organizations. Yet that is still how it should be. Debate with out rancor is a fine thing to wish for, but I wish to be good looking and young again too.
Hopefully in the cauldron of the media we can still find the nugget of information, but it isn't that people are stupid, or that the media is inappropriately biased, or that people have no critical thinking skills, or that people are dumber than they used to be, or perhaps that there is a left/right wing conspiracy, but it is true that things in the media space should be uncomfortable.
There is a wide gap between the fantasy of fair-balanced media and the reality of the humans and systems. It isn't that it is broken as quite the contrary it is working just the way it should. The speech and expression that makes us the most uncomfortable is likely the most protected speech just for that reason. The real fear is not that they do their job poorly in the main stream media but that they stop doing their job all together. That job is not to get the facts straight but to get the point across. Those are two different goals. As indoctrinated as we Americans are all to this fantasy concept of fair-balanced media it is difficult to accept, but it says no where in the first Amendment does it say fair/balanced/truth. It is freedom of speech/press that is protected not their veracity.
You really don't want to watch a factual news broadcast where they tell you the water in the flood zone has risen 3 feet due to three bazillion gallons per minute flow rate, and increasing. Instead the story is broadcast as the toll on the living and dying and the reach into the lives of the effected. The compelling story is the suffering which is where we get "If it bleeds it leads" and other disaffected stories.
One final thing. Censorship is always the last bastion of those who have lost an argument and the first step toward evil. Agree, disagree, but as long as the debate is in the open sooner or later the fallacious nature found in either argument will be shown. There is no practical limit on freedom of speech beyond slander, libel, and (argh) copyright. There is likely way to much restriction currently on freedom of speech from self censorship found in the political correctness movement. Today society is much more civil and as a result filled with much more drivel than in the 1960s. As a point where are the true scallawags of the media today? I can't find a Hunter S. Thompson, or Kerouac (chosen as opposites).
It is the nature of the soldier to try and control that which could harm. Huntington and other talk about the civil military relations and a big part of that is media. MountainRunner has an entire BLOG about the media and the government. The reality is that the soldier should have a perspective that is slightly onerous toward the media as at no point in American history has the media given the military a free ride. Love the soldiers, hate the war, is no dichotomy to the journalist. It is highly incongruous to the soldier to say you love them, and then vilify their work. However, it is no less damning to the military member to vilify an entire amendment to the Constitution, by crying censor the bastards, then it is publicly support a particular presidential candidate. In a flip of the journalist credo the soldier can say hate the journalists, love the right to freedom of expression. Which should drive most journalists just as crazy as they do the military.
Bookmarks