I do think their status as corporate employees influences their behavior -- that's exactly why I'm focusing on it. I'm not blaming the corporation completely; I'm holding accountable the toady that works for the corporation. The corporation is to blame only in the sense they allow it to happen and maybe even encourage it for the sake of ratings.
Your interpretation of how to distinguish news from commentary leaves much to be desired. Sam Donaldson, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, Bill O'Reilly, and many other network bozos sit alone at a desk reading from a script/teleprompter. These are the very ones I'm complaining about. The others couldn't be mistaken for news any more than Cher could be mistaken for an Oscar winner. Oh, wait...
Thanks for the definition of editorialization. I purposely use that phrase because it, alone, best describes news outlets sanctioning fools to spew political invective as opposed to the "news" those very people claim to report.
Facial tics don't bother me at all... my remote hand is faster than Mr. Donaldson's disturbing mannerisms.
No, I don't want to redefine the word "own." Again, I made it perfectly clear what my position was with regard to we, the people, owning the media and that it was a conceptual, indirect (as opposed to legal, possessive) ownership. You were the one who had a problem with what I said... I merely restated my position.
I also never said it was corporate influence that causes facial tics, editorial posturing, and verbal slants. Blame clearly belongs to the corporate boot-lick employing these tactics for political gain. The "influence" would be the tacit approval shown by not knocking these boneheads off the air. At the very least, they could be given their own show... "Alan Keyes is Making Sense" is a perfect example. Or maybe, was a perfect example before we, the people, forced the network to cancel his show by not watching it.
Personally, I don't listen to these people and I rarely watch, which I made perfectly clear in my last post(s). Well, I should say that I don't watch for long, but when I do, it's mostly for the laugh factor, which includes seeing just how far apart the various news agencies are in their "news coverage" of the same event.
And finally, I disagree that outfits such as CNN and Fox identify their editorializing from everything else, mainly because I think there's little to distinguish. In fact, that's what I've been complaining about from the beginning and it's the reason I don't watch. Almost all of what they do is editorializing, with little room for "straight news and straight reporting." And to be very clear here, let me say that I don't want them to start identifying editorials from the news. I can do that for myself. I want them to stop editorializing once and for all, and just give me the facts. I can apply my own spin, should I desire.
I think I made my point quite clear when I said that "the people" don't legally or monetarily own the media. I guess your problem is that you're believing your own edited version of what I said instead of reading what I actually said at face value, so let me reiterate and rephrase...
Because we, the people, ultimately control what is on tv, in print, and on the radio through advertising dollars, ratings, and subscriptions, we collectively "own" the media.
Again, read my post. I specifically mentioned having a disdain for those who purport themselves to be newscasters yet can't seem to distinguish reporting from commenting and editorializing. Turn on ABC/NBC/MSNBC/CBS/Fox/CNN and count how often these people can't refrain from knowing head bobs, sly winks, and wry smiles when discussing members of political parties with whom they disagree. And note that I'm not even talking about blatant news "discussion" progams where the person's name is in lights. With regard to television, I'm referring to simple, plain ol', garden-variety newscasters. And don't even get me started on NPR. Sometimes, when the wind is blowing just right, you can actually hear the facial expressions.
I agree with you about blogs being no more likely to tell the truth. Too many agendas.
Until we get to the Sgt. Friday school of journalism where we only care about "just the facts," though, this is what's going to happen. That's why I'd rather watch a small station and read more local newspapers where the staff tends to be very green and concerned more with reporting rather than spinning the news.
Not surprisingly, you're not really reading my comments, ironic since you accuse me of knee-jerk reactions.
The media does, in fact, belong to the people. When we don't watch, ratings suffer, advertisers leave... and it goes away. Direct cause and effect. Essentially, while I agree not legally, we own the media.
Again, you're not really reading my post. I never claimed, said, hinted, or otherwise suggested to "mandate what someone else's printing plant publishes." Let them print as much drivel as they want. I'm all for it. I discriminate. I take the responsibility to choose what to read and to whom I listen.
Again, you're not really reading my post. I didn't disdain corporate types, especially with a knee jerk. The problems I have with corporate "types" as you put it have nothing to do with what they print or their right to do so. What I disdain are corporate shills masquerading as newscasters, pretending to tell you the news, when all they seem to care about is putting some ridiculously transparent political spin on daily events. I don't actually care if the people are real, but the news damn well better be.
FWIW, I agree with most of your last 2 paragraphs, except the negativity towards blogs... I don't see them as parasitic. I see them as more honest. Maybe you can point me to some that aren't, but at least the ones I've seen don't proclaim themselves to be "fair and balanced" or "all the news that's fit to print"; to the contrary, they tend to poke fun at themselves.
Have you even bothered to go to Ana's website??? or are you just blathering on like most of the people on this forum, with complete disregard to the facts... true irony considering how many of you claim to want fact checking before posting.
"sounds like a capital..", "majority of the information coming from your loud mouth is false"? Where are you getting this from? Her site, BTW -- for those of you too lazy to look -- is mostly a stand-up (or maybe, sit-down?) comedy routine, with politics and politicians and those who report on politics and politicians being the main topic(s). All you should have to do is look at the graphic at the top of her website to know this is a spoof of a lark of a joke.
I still think you're missing the point. Wonkette is not to be taken seriously by anyone. Ana, herself, does not take it seriously. If others do, they are foolish. Let me put it this way: just because someone decides that Mad Magazine doesn't fairly and accurately depict modern life, should we try to hold Alfred E. Neumann responsible for not publishing to a higher standard??
As far as other bloggers go, I think all of them are revolutionary. Even the bad ones. Maybe, especially the bad ones. The media belongs to the people. It's about damn time we took it back. For better or worse, I'd rather wade through real people reporting (or even "reporting") the news than some tan, coiffed, corporate-shill bozo living a Don Henley song.
Are you seriously telling me you can't recognize "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters" as being farcical... whimsical, even?? And if so, that you can't distinguish it from the Times, the Washington Post, or the WSJ -- publications that are meant to be taken seriously? Is the "big 'ol(sic) sign" really that subtle?
Who says bloggers as a whole want to be taken seriously? Do yourself a favor and briefly peruse Wonkette. Do you really think she intends anyone to take her seriously? Much like The Daily Show, it's the wit and humor that bring people back, not the fact-o-meter rating.
you're comparing apples and astrophysics here. Wonkette is a blog, not news and as such, "correctness," political or actual, is secondary to her humor. And remember, humor is all about the timing, so there is little, if any, time/room for fact-checking.
News organizations, OTOH, are, and should continue to be, held to a different standard because they allegedly are in the fact business. We demand the utmost in sincerity, honesty, and truth-based reporting from Tom Brokaw, Sam Donaldson, and Peter Jennings because that is what they purport to do. Well, at least we should demand these things.
Slashdot Mirror
I do think their status as corporate employees influences their behavior -- that's exactly why I'm focusing on it. I'm not blaming the corporation completely; I'm holding accountable the toady that works for the corporation. The corporation is to blame only in the sense they allow it to happen and maybe even encourage it for the sake of ratings.
Your interpretation of how to distinguish news from commentary leaves much to be desired. Sam Donaldson, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, Bill O'Reilly, and many other network bozos sit alone at a desk reading from a script/teleprompter. These are the very ones I'm complaining about. The others couldn't be mistaken for news any more than Cher could be mistaken for an Oscar winner. Oh, wait...
Thanks for the definition of editorialization. I purposely use that phrase because it, alone, best describes news outlets sanctioning fools to spew political invective as opposed to the "news" those very people claim to report.
Facial tics don't bother me at all... my remote hand is faster than Mr. Donaldson's disturbing mannerisms.
No, I don't want to redefine the word "own." Again, I made it perfectly clear what my position was with regard to we, the people, owning the media and that it was a conceptual, indirect (as opposed to legal, possessive) ownership. You were the one who had a problem with what I said... I merely restated my position.
I also never said it was corporate influence that causes facial tics, editorial posturing, and verbal slants. Blame clearly belongs to the corporate boot-lick employing these tactics for political gain. The "influence" would be the tacit approval shown by not knocking these boneheads off the air. At the very least, they could be given their own show... "Alan Keyes is Making Sense" is a perfect example. Or maybe, was a perfect example before we, the people, forced the network to cancel his show by not watching it.
Personally, I don't listen to these people and I rarely watch, which I made perfectly clear in my last post(s). Well, I should say that I don't watch for long, but when I do, it's mostly for the laugh factor, which includes seeing just how far apart the various news agencies are in their "news coverage" of the same event.
And finally, I disagree that outfits such as CNN and Fox identify their editorializing from everything else, mainly because I think there's little to distinguish. In fact, that's what I've been complaining about from the beginning and it's the reason I don't watch. Almost all of what they do is editorializing, with little room for "straight news and straight reporting." And to be very clear here, let me say that I don't want them to start identifying editorials from the news. I can do that for myself. I want them to stop editorializing once and for all, and just give me the facts. I can apply my own spin, should I desire.
I think I made my point quite clear when I said that "the people" don't legally or monetarily own the media. I guess your problem is that you're believing your own edited version of what I said instead of reading what I actually said at face value, so let me reiterate and rephrase...
Because we, the people, ultimately control what is on tv, in print, and on the radio through advertising dollars, ratings, and subscriptions, we collectively "own" the media.
Again, read my post. I specifically mentioned having a disdain for those who purport themselves to be newscasters yet can't seem to distinguish reporting from commenting and editorializing. Turn on ABC/NBC/MSNBC/CBS/Fox/CNN and count how often these people can't refrain from knowing head bobs, sly winks, and wry smiles when discussing members of political parties with whom they disagree. And note that I'm not even talking about blatant news "discussion" progams where the person's name is in lights. With regard to television, I'm referring to simple, plain ol', garden-variety newscasters. And don't even get me started on NPR. Sometimes, when the wind is blowing just right, you can actually hear the facial expressions.
I agree with you about blogs being no more likely to tell the truth. Too many agendas.
Until we get to the Sgt. Friday school of journalism where we only care about "just the facts," though, this is what's going to happen. That's why I'd rather watch a small station and read more local newspapers where the staff tends to be very green and concerned more with reporting rather than spinning the news.
Not surprisingly, you're not really reading my comments, ironic since you accuse me of knee-jerk reactions. The media does, in fact, belong to the people. When we don't watch, ratings suffer, advertisers leave... and it goes away. Direct cause and effect. Essentially, while I agree not legally, we own the media. Again, you're not really reading my post. I never claimed, said, hinted, or otherwise suggested to "mandate what someone else's printing plant publishes." Let them print as much drivel as they want. I'm all for it. I discriminate. I take the responsibility to choose what to read and to whom I listen. Again, you're not really reading my post. I didn't disdain corporate types, especially with a knee jerk. The problems I have with corporate "types" as you put it have nothing to do with what they print or their right to do so. What I disdain are corporate shills masquerading as newscasters, pretending to tell you the news, when all they seem to care about is putting some ridiculously transparent political spin on daily events. I don't actually care if the people are real, but the news damn well better be. FWIW, I agree with most of your last 2 paragraphs, except the negativity towards blogs... I don't see them as parasitic. I see them as more honest. Maybe you can point me to some that aren't, but at least the ones I've seen don't proclaim themselves to be "fair and balanced" or "all the news that's fit to print"; to the contrary, they tend to poke fun at themselves.
Thanks for the Mad magazine reference. And here I thought I was the only one who had images of Alfred E. Neumann being sued for libel!
Have you even bothered to go to Ana's website??? or are you just blathering on like most of the people on this forum, with complete disregard to the facts... true irony considering how many of you claim to want fact checking before posting.
"sounds like a capital..", "majority of the information coming from your loud mouth is false"? Where are you getting this from? Her site, BTW -- for those of you too lazy to look -- is mostly a stand-up (or maybe, sit-down?) comedy routine, with politics and politicians and those who report on politics and politicians being the main topic(s). All you should have to do is look at the graphic at the top of her website to know this is a spoof of a lark of a joke.
I still think you're missing the point. Wonkette is not to be taken seriously by anyone. Ana, herself, does not take it seriously. If others do, they are foolish. Let me put it this way: just because someone decides that Mad Magazine doesn't fairly and accurately depict modern life, should we try to hold Alfred E. Neumann responsible for not publishing to a higher standard??
As far as other bloggers go, I think all of them are revolutionary. Even the bad ones. Maybe, especially the bad ones. The media belongs to the people. It's about damn time we took it back. For better or worse, I'd rather wade through real people reporting (or even "reporting") the news than some tan, coiffed, corporate-shill bozo living a Don Henley song.
Are you seriously telling me you can't recognize "News for Nerds. Stuff that matters" as being farcical... whimsical, even?? And if so, that you can't distinguish it from the Times, the Washington Post, or the WSJ -- publications that are meant to be taken seriously? Is the "big 'ol(sic) sign" really that subtle?
Who says bloggers as a whole want to be taken seriously? Do yourself a favor and briefly peruse Wonkette. Do you really think she intends anyone to take her seriously? Much like The Daily Show, it's the wit and humor that bring people back, not the fact-o-meter rating.
you're comparing apples and astrophysics here. Wonkette is a blog, not news and as such, "correctness," political or actual, is secondary to her humor. And remember, humor is all about the timing, so there is little, if any, time/room for fact-checking. News organizations, OTOH, are, and should continue to be, held to a different standard because they allegedly are in the fact business. We demand the utmost in sincerity, honesty, and truth-based reporting from Tom Brokaw, Sam Donaldson, and Peter Jennings because that is what they purport to do. Well, at least we should demand these things.