Change in media reporting

[Featherock]

The post that started this thread is conservative propaganda and not worth the attention of SWJ readers. The discussion it generated is more interesting.

That said, are there any actual journalists commenting here?

[Ken White]

The post that started this thread is conservative propaganda and not worth the attention of SWJ readers.

I would've said poor satire as opposed to propaganda but whatever.

That said, are there any actual journalists commenting here?

Oblong said he was, >20 years worth...

Now you're here so that's two (plus lurkers like hedgpethd), I guess...

[Featherock]

I thought that the satire itself was quite good! It's the propagandistic bent to it that brings it down. But enough of that...

I don't think we in the U.S. get enough mainstream media stories that are critical of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Thank God for the web

[Ken White]

I don't think we in the U.S. get enough mainstream media stories that are critical of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Definition 1, below, I think we get more than enough *. If you mean Definition 2, then I agree with you:

1. Inclined to judge severely and find fault.

2. Characterized by careful, exact evaluation and judgment:


* With the caveat that I understand that if it doesn't bleed, it doesn't lead and that the second definition is precluded by several factors including local stringers with obvious and totally understandable impartiality problems and a general lack of knowledge, acceptance or understanding of all many western reporters see -- and also that there's a strong proclivity to insure prophecy becomes reality on the part of stateside based editors and producers.

[Featherock]

Definitely #2.

I think the result of #2 has been jingoism, mainly.

Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing more of #1 if the theoretical media outlet and/or media personality was clearly anti-war, a thundering pacifist, or even an angry protectionist. That would be fun to watch.

[Wildcat]

I laughed. I wouldn't call it conservative propaganda, but it highlights a very well earned distrust with the media. Not to get on my soapbox or anything, but I've seen virtually no news coverage of the current offensive in Mosul, the last redoubt of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

The moment I still come back to, though, time and time again in my mind, was when Cpl. Jason Dunham's family was given his Medal of Honor, awarded posthumously.

But it received virtually no airtime on any of the major cable news outlets.

Why?

Because that was the same day as Anna Nicole Smith's funeral.

Non-stop coverage of some bimbo's funeral on CNN, while Dunham's sacrifice went almost unnoticed. That made my blood boil.

Take from that what you will. I don't buy into all the "liberal media" invective that gets tossed around. I read the New York Times almost every day, and I don't believe there's any conspiracy to undermine the war. But I am constantly reminded that media is a business, and it tends to seek that which will bring more viewers, and thus generate more revenue. There may be a few diamonds in the rough, reporters and correspondents who still have integrity and commitment, but by and large it seems to me that the media is not to be trusted.

[marct]

Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing more of #1 if the theoretical media outlet and/or media personality was clearly anti-war, a thundering pacifist, or even an angry protectionist. That would be fun to watch.

True, but that's back at the infotainment industry . Personally, I'd like to see more critical examinations as well, especially if there is a sharp distinction drawn between why it started and what's happening now.

[selil]

True, but that's back at the infotainment industry . Personally, I'd like to see more critical examinations as well, especially if there is a sharp distinction drawn between why it started and what's happening now.

We could write critical examinations but it would get darn lonely quick.

[Ken White]

...I think the result of #2 has been jingoism, mainly.

I'm unsure what you mean by that. I do know that I have seen so little truly thoughtful analysis and comment on either Afghanistan or Iraq that I'm unsure how jingoism can develop other than as a dumb knee jerk reaction to sloppy reporting.

Frankly, I wouldn't mind seeing more of #1 if the theoretical media outlet and/or media personality was clearly anti-war, a thundering pacifist, or even an angry protectionist. That would be fun to watch.

The interesting thing is that there's plenty of #1 about due to ignorance of entirely too many of the writers and a bias that is not necessarily as a committed believer in much of anything, to include the three thoughts you posit.

Indeed, many don't seem to be believers in much of anything except in some cases by some journalists that it is their role to save the world from itself -- like the Preachers who believe the same thing, they really get short shrift from most of the great unwashed. I truly don't think most of the world savers in either vocation realize just how short...

Marketing in the US generally heads for the late teen-early 20 market because that's where the flaky binge spenders are. Due to market pressures as Oblong mentioned print journalism is aiming at the same market. Like him, I'm inclined to disagree with that approach. It would seem to me that anyone who wanted to improve the world would object strenuously to dumbing down anything, much less the news. There are exceptions that do not dumb down their output -- but there are not nearly enough of them.

Marc said:

"...Personally, I'd like to see more critical examinations as well, especially if there is a sharp distinction drawn between why it started and what's happening now."

Between why it started or why it was said it started? Two very, very different things, I think...

[Rank amateur]

I do know that I have seen so little truly thoughtful analysis and comment on either Afghanistan or Iraq that I'm unsure how jingoism can develop other than as a dumb knee jerk reaction to sloppy reporting.

The fact that the war was sold on sound bites like weapons of mass destruction, liberation, flowers at our feet, dead enders and mission accomplished may have something to do with it too.

[marct]

Between why it started or why it was said it started? Two very, very different things, I think...

Good point, Ken - I was more referring to the entire entire "start debate" vs. the "now that we're here..." or what do we do now" debates. For example, a story that says "this is an illegal war so we should now withdraw" would be mixing the two. It's one of the reasons why I was so peeved over the Dems "Support the soldiers, not the war" meme...

[Culpeper]

The post that started this thread is conservative propaganda and not worth the attention of SWJ readers. The discussion it generated is more interesting.

Conservative propaganda is a little harsh. Conservative satire is more like it. Its intellectual value has some merit no different than political cartoons of every flavor. Excluding myself, most of the folks posting on this thread are taking a serious look at the media that the satire sparked. So, I disagree that the post, which started this thread is not worth reading by SWC readers. Without the original post there would be no discussion here. If you found the original post insulting in some way than please elaborate further. To include something written in American society as propaganda is not taking a fair look at freedom of expression. The word, "propaganda" used to describe someone's freedom of expression is a hot button that should be used with caution. Freedom of expression is the cornerstone of every journalist's philosophy on Freedom for the Press. In fact, I would go far as to state that describing the satire as "conservative", "liberal", "right", or "left", is a moot point.