Rather on the Broken US News Industry
Dan Rather blames the decline of television news in the US on media consolidation and the corporate bottom line. Rather prescribes greater courage on the part of journalists, but that seems to me not to address his premise. If media consolidation is the problem then Anti-Trust actions would make more sense as a response.
His description of what is on television news most of the time is correct and hilarious.
posted by Juan Cole @ 11/08/2008 12:02:00 AM
|
Facebook
7 Comments:
I could take his views more seriously if he had not discredited his own profession.
Maybe a good question to ask is how many Americans really want "quality" news.
The New York Times does a pretty good job presenting the news, and lots of it. But the newspaper is loathed by a lot of Americans - most of whom never have read it.
You can lead citizens to a fine news source, but you can't make them curious. (But show some leg and they'll sit up and beg.)
Why do we need Dan Rather when Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky spelled it out twenty years ago in Manufacture of Consent? The effects of media consolidation are overblown. Whether the media is in the hands of a small group of corporations or many corporations, it would still be owned by the super wealthy, still rely on advertising for revenue, and still be mandated by law to maximize profits.
"The New York Times does a pretty good job presenting the news, and lots of it. But the newspaper is loathed by a lot of Americans - most of whom never have read it."
Oh, really? It does a "pretty good job"? Well, I have two words for you: Judith Miller.
Want more? I can provide plenty of them if you like. The New York Times was instrumental in helping the Bush regime and its minions to sell the lies that have lead to the destruction of an entire country, the deaths of more than a million, and the displacement of at least five millions of innocent human beings. Not to mention, of course, the several trillions of dollars that debacle will cost the citizens of the United States.
A "pretty good job" indeed!
It seems that after retirement generals and anchormen have a lot to say, even though, they kept their silent when they could actually affect the outcome. It all make sense, when someone like Dan Rather makes millions of Dollars as news anchor he would not be interested in stirring the pot beyond some point. The income also serves as a good reward for other journalist that follow the party line. It all works quite nicely, until Internet showed up!
ref : “If media consolidation is the problem then Anti-Trust actions would make more sense as a response.”
imho, If consolidation is the problem, then disintegration would make more sense as a response. You, Professor are a witness to this process (this history writ) by the very fact that you chose to post ~ and we choose to view ~ a YouTube narrowcast video of what was a "consolidated", apparent broadcast :)
The irony of the U.S. television industry's conversion in FEB-2009 ~ from ANALOG to DIGITAL TV standard ~ is that television broadcasting, itself is ending its lifecycle of relevance, and is experiencing something similar to the effect that the internet is having on print media / journalism.
imho The most interesting aspect of old -v- new media evolution is how people choose to view either "news" or "confirmation of views," iow, channeling. Your 'Favorites' folder is not unlike the old radio-buttons that people use to pre-select their audio and/or video preferences. If you don't have a BBC or an Informed Comment BUTTON, then you're not likely to experience that P.O.V.
And the irony of channeling is that semi-autonomous news searchers, e.g., "Google News", become vital ~ becasue of their supposed "mechanical" algorithms ~ as not just CONSOLIDATORS, but CHANNELERS.
The Television Revolution Will Not Be Televised : it will be YouTube'd.
What about the (foreign) lobbies that exercice their power on the politic and media in USA ?
ok let's go back sleeping...
Zheng
Post a Comment
<< Home