Reminder
12 years ago
Sunday, April 13, 2008
"Professionals"
Stuff like this is just depressing. I sometimes think the only way we'll ever have a truly decent news channel is if some altruistic billionaire sets up a trust to support a news network (at a loss) that actually hires reporters to do real news and then lets loose with it. Sadly, I almost think there'd also have to be a budget to deal with all of the shit that would come from the establishment trying to destroy such a network, were it ever to exist. The powers that be guard their power jealously.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
What's the difference between what you're describing and public radio (specifically, programs like BBC World Service and other national and international programs)?
That's a good point. Though look at what has happened with public radio in this country (or at least what they tried to do) under the Bush years. Sometimes I think all of the attacks they get causes them to back off - after all, I don't recall hearing that the lead-up to the Iraq war was based on bullshit on NPR in 2002.
But BBC probably does things a bit better.
No, but they weren't leading the charge like FOX News, either. I'm sure at some point, somebody had to make a decision based on listener funding and the credibility of the organization, and God knows everybody already thinks NPR is some left-wing brainwashing organization. It's sad that a news outlet would have to stop and ask, "is this viewpoint mainstream enough not to undermine our credibility?" but that's how it works, I guess.
Come to think of it, doesn't FOX News meet your hypothetical scenario as well? Rich guy buys up news outlets, labels it "fair and balanced," says "fuck you" to reasonable mainstream outlets because he's going to report the world as he sees it? And now THAT'S mainstream and reasonable people are lefty communist pinkos. And the trend was never worse than in 2002. I remember the FOX "coverage" of the international demonstrations in the months leading up to the war. One news anchor said she was reluctant to even show the footage of the protests becuase she didn't "believe in them" and she didn't think "most Americans did, either." Because, you know, it's up to the media to bring us all the news we AGREE with.
I'd say Fox Noise is the opposite of what I'm thinking of. Though it is interesting that as the Bush presidency has fallen apart beyond the point that PR could paper over it, Fox's ratings have tanked.
I'm thinking of a news organization that pursues the truth no matter who in power it might hurt (or help). Not one that supports one ideology or another. If anything, I'd want it to be skeptical - with the motto being more along the lines of - we know politicians are lying to us, let's just figure out what it is they are lying about and why - and what the underlying truths are. I watch the news now and the abject stenography and he said/she said reporting is disguting.
NPR was ultimately no better at this than Fox. They gave the party line and were not skeptical.
I want the truth, not bullshit, not propeganda, not left-wing or right-wing friendly. I want events under a microscope - and I want the important stories covered (like torture), not fluff (like bowling scores).
Although mainstream media has, indeed, made us all skeptical, I think that there are still journalists who try to uncover, and deliver, "the truth, not bullshit, not propaganda".
Peruse, and let me know your thoughts:
The Center for Public Integrity
Thanks Tammy for the Link. I know it is easy to get discouraged and forget those out there who are doing good work in this regard.
I just wish that sort of work was what drove the central core of our media rather than what is posted on the Drudge Report.
Post a Comment