I get what you are saying and largely agree, but a shift from the people at large to elite academics is inherently a left vs right thing inasmuch as elite academics are presumed to not only be left, but far(ther) left
That's true. A lot of these things are asymmetric. There's no doubt the academic elite leans left. Just like the economic elite leans right. I recall the debate (also started by Brad) about cancel culture vs. fake news - the former is primarily a vice of the left, while the latter is a vice of the right. The problem is we find it too easy to go from "both sides have their faults" to "both sides have all the faults." It becomes difficult to talk about these issues intelligently when we can't even distinguish between them.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
I can confirm this. I listen to NPR throughout the day and sometimes it's just too much. It's one thing to be cognizant and concerned about social issues, but entirely another to give a platform to professional whiners.
Red-pilled Taibbi is the best.
taibbi.substack.com
The Media Campaign to Protect Joe Biden Passes the Point of Absurdity
A development in the infamous laptop story further proves the "Russian Disinformation" tale was itself disinformation, shaming a herd of craven media stenographers
taibbi.substack.com
My gut reaction is that most headline writers are attempting to attract readers but haven't actually carefully read the article due to press time deadlines.
We should also keep in mind the headline writers are restricted to the space allowed in setting up a page along with press deadlines.
Putting together a daily newspaper which pleases a sufficient number of subscribers to remain profitable is almost impossible in a good many communities. Combine this with advertisers who find the internet more effective, and you have newspaper journalism dying.
OAN is a good old fashion, straight up news channel. No BS just straight facts that let the listener form their own opinion. Christina Bobb is a wonderful reporter, ex JAG, digs into the details and reports the facts. She's a smoke show too!
Based on how you characterize it, I’d say you fear it far more than any old white man…
Interesting thoughts, OHG. You zero in on some important issues. But one thing that I always wonder about when people discuss media is when this halcyon era often longed for of independent media not dominated by its corporate overlords actually was. And when was journalism immune from the the pressures of paying the bills by giving customers what they want (entertainment)?
Every system has its strengths and weaknesses. State media doesn't have the pressure of paying the bills, so entertainment isn't a huge pressure, but its freedom is constricted by its government overlords. Free market media does have pressure to pay the bills, so entertainment has always been part of the calculus and its freedom is likewise constricted by its business overlords (corporate or otherwise).
hoot opened an interesting side channel when bringing up headline writers. IMHO, the power in media isn't with the individual (independent or not) journalist, but with the editors and publishers who decide what is covered and how it is framed.
Last edited:
The guy who bitches about “disgruntled old white men” criticizes those who say “woke”. Do you have any clue how stupid you seem?
Until CNN, all you had for national TV "news media" was the big 3 networks, and they were operated more in the "public interest" than with any eye toward profitability. CNN hit the big time covering the First Gulf War (and were soon followed by Fox and MSNBC); "news" then was required to pay its own way and compete for eyeballs, and the race to the bottom toward the least common denominator began. Once they began chasing ratings, they then began chasing particular demographics.
He personifies the transformation. It went from providing what is now idealized as straight unbiased news to those who cared, to chasing consumers of their "news" product. Quality went out the window. Beta vs. VHS, Mac vs. PC, etc. Lowest common denominator.
Whose ascendancy coincided with Newt - and the advent or explosion of divisive politics. Fast forward to social media, the proliferation of sensational news, and the dumbing down of America and here we are
Great thread. I agree with most all the comments about what is wrong with journalism. It is mostly advocacy for mostly left-wing causes. It tends to not just disagree with right-wing commentary, it insults, excoriates and belittles. That is the epitome of moral and intellectual elitism. I agree also with goat’s observation about the elites. Much journalism seems to be directed at elites and written for elite consumption.New book. Here’s an interview:
Google Podcasts
With Google Podcasts, you can find and listen to the world's podcasts for free.podcasts.google.com
And here’s a summary of the author’s argument:
Something is wrong with American journalism. Long before “fake news” became the calling card of the Right, Americans had lost faith in their news media. But lately, the feeling that something is off has become impossible to ignore. That’s because the majority of our mainstream news is no longer just liberal; it’s woke. Today’s newsrooms are propagating radical ideas that were fringe as recently as a decade ago, including “antiracism,” intersectionality, open borders, and critical race theory. How did this come to be? It all has to do with who our news media is written by — and who it is written for.
Batya Ungar-Sargon explains how American journalism underwent a status revolution over the twentieth century — from a blue-collar trade to an elite profession. As a result, journalists shifted their focus away from the working class and toward the concerns of their affluent, highly educated peers.
Ungar-Sargon avers that, in abandoning the working class by creating a culture war around identity, our national media is undermining American democracy
Part of the problem which hasn’t been mentioned is us, the consumers of news. Too many are in “don’t give a shit” mode. Others are incapable of any independent thought and look for being told what to think. Others just don’t understand the importance of good information and free expression. When the law students at one of the elite law schools in the country shut down speech, and think they have done the right thing, we have a problem. I don’t think many who believe they have received a good classical liberal education could write a cogent explanation about the importance of free expression. The danger to democracy is more us than the media.
Journalism was always directed by various interests. In the age of yellow journalism, it was the ideologies of the owners. Mark hinted at an important change that came about when news started shifting from print to broadcast (radio, then tv). The major players were for-profit companies, to be sure, but their profit was assured. They were given the airwaves for free by the government, and in exchange, they promised to serve the public. They legitimately took this trade seriously for decades. Cable changed everything. Cable companies had no obligation to the public. They tried to pretend they did, but their attempt at fulfilling this obligation (C-SPAN) was and remains a joke, highlighting how unseriously they took this charge.
Media mergers blurred the lines between broadcast and other media companies, and so the same forces that act on CNN/Newscorp/etc. also began to act on CBS/ABC/NBC. So I'm not sure there was truly a "halcyon era" as you phrase it, but if you want to find the dividing line between when it was mostly good and mostly bad, I'd look for the rise of cable and the subsequent media conglomeration.
In prior times, "elite academics" had a pedestal or platform, did they not? Perhaps that platform has grown via the ease of mass communication via the internet and more specifically, social media?
One of the last great intellectuals had this to say:
REASON: Perhaps we can go back to your comment about intellectuals. What do you think of the thesis put forth by von Mises and Schoeck, that envy motivates many contemporary intellectuals’ opposition to the free market?
FRIEDMAN: Well, I don’t think we’ll get very far by interpreting the intellectuals’ motivation. Their critical attitudes might be attributed to personal resentment and envy but I would say that a more fruitful direction, or a more fundamental one, is that intellectuals are people with something to sell. So the question becomes, what is there a better market for? I think a major reason why intellectuals tend to move towards collectivism is that the collectivist answer is a simple one. If there’s something wrong pass a law and do something about it. If there’s something wrong it’s because of some no-good bum, some devil, evil and wicked–that’s a very simple story to tell. You don’t have to be very smart to write it and you don’t have to be very smart to accept it. On the other hand, the individualistic or libertarian argument is a sophisticated and subtle one. If there’s something wrong with society, if there’s a real social evil, maybe you will make better progress by letting people voluntarily try to eliminate the evil. Therefore, I think, there is in advance a tendency for intellectuals to be attracted to sell the collectivist idea.
REASON: It’s paradoxical but people might then say that you are attributing to the collectivist intellectual a better feeling for the market.
FRIEDMAN: Of course. But while there’s a bigger market for Fords than there is for American Motors products, there is a market for the American Motors products. In the same way, there’s a bigger market for collectivist ideology than there is for individualist ideology. The thing that really baffles me is that the fraction of intellectuals who are collectivists is, I think, even larger than would be justified by the market.
I'm curious why you and Mark have the impression that the big 3 networks weren't chasing profits with their news divisions. Their profits were no more guaranteed than any other for-profit enterprise, particularly in the early days of the enterprise. As such, they served A public interest, but I find it pretty difficult to accept anyone claiming that they served THE public interest. They might have served an interest that you would have supported and been happy about, but there were plenty of interests that weren't served. And their editorial decisions were no more or less driven by the interests their "overlords" wanted to push than current media interests.
"Today’s newsrooms are propagating radical ideas that were fringe as recently as a decade ago, including “antiracism,” intersectionality, open borders, and critical race theory. How did this come to be? It all has to do with who our news media is written by — and who it is written for".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
there hasn't been any "liberal" mainstream news source in my lifetime, and i'm old.
in my younger days during the time of the Vietnam war, media was very pro govt.
in the last 40 plus yrs, it's still been very pro govt, but even more so, over the top pro corp, pro Wall St, pro investor class, and "f" the working man.
that said, when thinking about the over the top "woke" coverage on the mainstream media, pro or con, makes no difference as to the end goal, so pay close attention to what gets tons on coverage, and what gets virtually zero.
medicare for all, $15 hr min wage, decriminalizing pot, doing something about the cost of higher education, the absurd cost of drugs and why, unaffordable healthcare costs, ie things that are popular with the public and unpopular with Wall St, that would shine a positive light on economic progressive Dems, get virtually zero coverage.
bathroom choice, M-F transgenders competing against women in sports, absurdly soft on violent crime, open immigration, etc, ie things that make Dems look like idiots, get covered non stop.
things that make Pubs look bad get zero coverage on Fox or OAN, Newsmax, etc.
things that make Pubs look good, get covered non stop on those same outlets.
things that make progressive Dems look good get almost zero coverage on CNN, MSNBC, etc.
things that make Dems look like idiots, get covered 24/7 on CNN and MSNBC.
the DNC itself, (not many Dem politicians themselves necessarily), CNN/Warner Media/AT&T, and Comcast/NBC/MSNBC/Universal/Sky Group, are all effectively false flag operations.
Wall St who funds, thus controls the national DNC, Comcast, Warner Media/AT&T, have two agendas,
1) keep Pubs in control.
2) make sure any Dems in high national office, are as far right economically as Pubs.
it's just business.
Comcast/NBC and AT&T/Warner Media, just as much or more as with Fox/News Corp), have literally 10s of billions each riding on economic far rights winning elections.
so do their advertisers.
on a side note, the US house voted to legalize pot the other day.
didn't see any panel discussions on that anywhere, did ya.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
there hasn't been any "liberal" mainstream news source in my lifetime, and i'm old.
in my younger days during the time of the Vietnam war, media was very pro govt.
in the last 40 plus yrs, it's still been very pro govt, but even more so, over the top pro corp, pro Wall St, pro investor class, and "f" the working man.
that said, when thinking about the over the top "woke" coverage on the mainstream media, pro or con, makes no difference as to the end goal, so pay close attention to what gets tons on coverage, and what gets virtually zero.
medicare for all, $15 hr min wage, decriminalizing pot, doing something about the cost of higher education, the absurd cost of drugs and why, unaffordable healthcare costs, ie things that are popular with the public and unpopular with Wall St, that would shine a positive light on economic progressive Dems, get virtually zero coverage.
bathroom choice, M-F transgenders competing against women in sports, absurdly soft on violent crime, open immigration, etc, ie things that make Dems look like idiots, get covered non stop.
things that make Pubs look bad get zero coverage on Fox or OAN, Newsmax, etc.
things that make Pubs look good, get covered non stop on those same outlets.
things that make progressive Dems look good get almost zero coverage on CNN, MSNBC, etc.
things that make Dems look like idiots, get covered 24/7 on CNN and MSNBC.
the DNC itself, (not many Dem politicians themselves necessarily), CNN/Warner Media/AT&T, and Comcast/NBC/MSNBC/Universal/Sky Group, are all effectively false flag operations.
Wall St who funds, thus controls the national DNC, Comcast, Warner Media/AT&T, have two agendas,
1) keep Pubs in control.
2) make sure any Dems in high national office, are as far right economically as Pubs.
it's just business.
Comcast/NBC and AT&T/Warner Media, just as much or more as with Fox/News Corp), have literally 10s of billions each riding on economic far rights winning elections.
so do their advertisers.
on a side note, the US house voted to legalize pot the other day.
didn't see any panel discussions on that anywhere, did ya.
Last edited:
reporters and on air personalities don't decide what does and doesn't get covered, or how it is presented.
the corp exec suites do.
corp execs have only one agenda, and they don't ever act in opposition to that one agenda.
thinking that they do, EVER, no matter how much false propaganda to that end, is beyond naive to the point of total idiocy.
CORPORATIONS are CORPORATIONS.
they never will nor never can be anything else, or behave as anything else.
literally every move they make is calculated to the nth degree at every level, to one and only one end.
how is it most just never grasp this reality, no matter how blatantly obvious..
the corp exec suites do.
corp execs have only one agenda, and they don't ever act in opposition to that one agenda.
thinking that they do, EVER, no matter how much false propaganda to that end, is beyond naive to the point of total idiocy.
CORPORATIONS are CORPORATIONS.
they never will nor never can be anything else, or behave as anything else.
literally every move they make is calculated to the nth degree at every level, to one and only one end.
how is it most just never grasp this reality, no matter how blatantly obvious..
"Assured" may have been a strong word, but they really had to screw up to not make a ton of money. And one of the major reasons they were set up to make all this money was the deal they made with the public - the airwaves in exchange for programming in the public interest. What I'm arguing is that they actually took their end of this bargain seriously for many years. Of course, they wanted to make as much money as possible, but CBS saw the news division as primarily fulfilling this role of serving the public interest, in exchange for the opportunity to make loads of money off the public airwaves in myriad other ways*.
Look, I'm not trying to suggest that the corporate magnates at CBS, ABC, etc., were any less interested in profit than any other business leaders. What I am suggesting is that they had an appreciation that their profit came from the deal they made with the public, and the news divisions were how they fulfilled their end of the deal, and that was why the news divisions were able to operate relatively independently for many years.
I think this probably rubbed off (in a good way) on print journalism. WaPo and NYT couldn't be engaging in Hearstian shenanigans, because it damaged their prestige, and the role of the networks as protectors of the public good played a big role in that. And, yes, of course, the public response. As the public came to expect quality, objective journalism, then smart business dictated that media outlets give it to them. So it was doubly-reinforcing. Not only did we have people who felt some sense of a duty to "do it the right way," so to speak, but doing it the right way, for a very long time, was conducive to increased readership/viewership - and thus, profits.
Now, of course, precious few of the public expect that kind of journalism, and even fewer can be trusted to routinely consume it. So that end of the doubly-reinforcing mechanism is incredibly weak. And for the reasons I outlined in the previous post, the other end - the "duty" end - is also at a low point. So we get what we have now.
* Or, "a myriad of other ways," for those so ridiculously inclined.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
I'd guess that wokeness (if you don't like the term, then please answer Freddie DeBoer's question "what do you want us to call it because you keep changing the name and you have to call it something and then at some point actuallydefend it instead of just whining that people are using the wrong label") sells to upper middle-class, and high income liberal minded people with college degrees, and young people. Both are valuable demographics that spend a lot of money.
There is actually a specific contractual agreement that networks have to adhere to in order to fulfill their end of the bargain and their nightly news programming does (and did) not contribute to fulfilling it. We literally had classes about this stuff in college and everything I read in those classes indicated that news divisions weren't there to fulfill the their public service obligations.
However, that's really only part of my point. The larger one is that what you see as "the public interest" was actually just the same perspective-driven editorial decision-making seen much more obviously today. Did not reporting on JFK's affair with Marilyn Monroe serve the public interest more than reporting on Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky did? Did the news media's cozy relationship with J. Edgar Hoover serve the public interest?
While I disagree that news media has ever been driven by some noble and disinterested public service, I do agree that it responds to the changing wants of those consuming the content it produces. We've changed a ton since the early days of electronic news media...some of it good, some of it bad, but IMHO on balance in a generally positive trajectory. We're blessed by the massive amount of information available to us, but we can much better in how we utilize it.
Show your work. 10 to 15 years ago, I probably would not have challenged that sentiment and accepted it at face value, but I don't think that is the case anymore at least not in the cultural realm. There is probably still disagreement on how much taxes rich people should have to give up, but I think the "elite" (a misnomer IMO) in the U.S. are in lock step for the most part when it comes to this cultural stuff.
They were, but it was easier to divide a pie by 3 to 5 then by 180 or whatever. At 6 p.m. in the 1960's what were your options to watch? ABC, NBC, CBS, and maybe a local affiliate? Fox did not become a network until the mid-80's. Even with the early advent of cable TV, I remember in the mid 80's having the little black box with the channel dial on it. You maybe had around 40 channels on that dial. Which was a huge increase for someone who until that point had 5 in Fort Wayne. Trying to remember them all but I think it was CBS on Channel 15, ABC on 21, NBC on 33, PBS on 39, and a local affiliate that became FOX on 55.
Each increase in choices means you have to do more to differentiate yourself in the market. In the past you would almost just choose based on the anchor reading you the news. "I don't like that old Dan Rather, so I am going to watch Tom Brokaw instead..." Then the option started to pop up where you did not have to watch the news at all. When cable became ubiquitous is when the news really went off the rails IMO.
You will never get rid of the disproportionate amount of Democrats in journalism. It is inevitable. Journalists, like Democrats, are observers at their core. They are the critic in Teddy Roosevelt’s “Man in the Arena”.
Republicans are doers. Writing about the feats of others is not the field for them. .
Republicans are doers. Writing about the feats of others is not the field for them. .
What happened to calling it white guilt? I suspect that's where its roots lie, at least in the accepting of such things as CRT by upper middle class/wealthy white liberals.
Except with white guilt there was a sense whites were going to "do" something about the problems they (probably) helped create. Money was replaced with CRT maybe b/c it's cheaper and they can say "see, we're righting the wrongs of the past!".
Wokeness is about feelings rather than actually doing something to address the problems related to racial inequity.
The media - all media - has become an echo chamber.
All the major media outlets often interview other journalists - not news sources.
I blame 24X7 news for this. They are required to fill their time and sensationalism and hyperbole sell better than calm reporting of the news.
And, in fairness, newspapers used to be blatantly partisan - it wasn't hidden all. My little county newpaper used to be called the Hoosier Democrat.
I ask myself with the Washington Post would have investigated Watergate so vociferously, and I have to say I highly doubt it.
You can't be serious. Go back and watch Chris Wallace cut Trump off when he brings up Hunter Biden and his selling influence and tell me he keeps it under control.
Amanpur and Zakaria clearly show their bias. It's not even a question.
Watch Bret Baier if you want the straight news. He does have a 'panel' where they discuss issues, but most of his show is straight news.
Nobody's perfect and yes, Bret Baier is pretty good.
Amanpour and Zakaria are excellent. There's really no debating it.
Top level msm talking heads (apologies to The Talking Heads) are paid huge sums to parrot the narrative.
It's ALWAYS about the Benjamins.
Like in Ukraine.
I don't watch OAN, but had to look her up, based on your description of her.
I don't know, man.... she looks like a soft 6 to me.
She's also leaving OAN, according to this.
OAN Host Ditches Far-Right Network: Next Stop, Trumpworld?
Christina Bobb, one of the far-right channel’s most loyal MAGA sycophants, looks to be taking her talents down to Mar-a-Lago.
www.thedailybeast.com
Last edited:
6 externally, 3.9 inner beauty. And of course I have lowered my standards over the years. 😁I don't watch OAN, but had to look her up, based on your description of her.
I don't know, man.... she looks like a soft 6 to me.
She's also leaving OAN, according to this.
OAN Host Ditches Far-Right Network: Next Stop, Trumpworld?
Christina Bobb, one of the far-right channel’s most loyal MAGA sycophants, looks to be taking her talents down to Mar-a-Lago.www.thedailybeast.com
I did just yesterday notice that OAN is no longer on Direct TV. They've went online for a 4.99 subscription. I wonder if they are having cash flow problems or they were canceled by Direct over slightly leaning to the right?
I have zero doubt that Trump has scooped her up, he knows beauty and brains when he see's them!
So, your argument is that competition is bad? That's an interesting take. We should delve into that further and tease out the solutions you have to offer.
But you seem to suffering from the misimpression that broadcast television was a mature market and that TVs were abundant in households in the 40's, 50's, and 60's. That was most certainly not the case.
Last edited:
To me Rush’s most game-changing effect was turning a vast swath of apolitical radio listeners into “informed” spectators in the game of politics.
These people were the opposite of the elite in the OP. So one could conjecture that while the liberal media were Narrowing their focus narrowing their focus to a relatively small number of elites, the conservative media were broadening their appeal to the working class.
The secondary effect of Rush Limbaugh was turning politics into a spectator sport, in which you choose your favorite team. Sports have long been the interest of the common guy. Rush simplified politics so the common guy could root for his political team.
Last edited:
Similar threads
On Traditional Media and Why it Sucks
- anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
- The Water Cooler 6 7 8
