Skip to comments.The Media Really Do Think We're Idiots
Posted on 11/07/2011 9:27:14 AM PST by Stoutcat
Back in mid-October, Business Insider ran a snarky little article, entitled, "Tea Party Or Occupy Wall Street? Bet You Can't Tell The Difference". Glynnis MacNichol starts out with this facile comparison:
Ever since the Occupy Wall St. movement caught the mainstream media's attention the group has frequently been dubbed the Left's version of the Tea Party... Certainly the coverage often sounds the same. Namely, a lot of cable hosts and newspaper pundits broadly speculating in bold terms what it might all mean.
For the most part their conclusions fall along partisan lines and sound something like this:
* The [fill in the group] is irresponsible, uneducated, dangerous and isn't at all representative of the country.
* The [fill in the group] is a true American patriot, voicing the opinion of many, about the reality of the country, and is being treated badly by the press.
Sadly, Ms. MacNichol doesn't bother to go any farther than her compatriots and delve into why one group might be considered dangerous while another might actually represent a majority opinion. She compounds her error by presuming her readership is as ignorant as she is:
Check out the signs we pulled from protests from both groups (some in 2009, some in the last month) and see if you can correctly choose which sign belongs to which group.
It's not as easy as you think. [Emphasis mine]
Actually, if you've been paying any kind of attention, it really is quite easy. Click the link to go to the "bet you can't tell the difference" slideshow. If you're not a complete moron, you should be able to distinguish which are which with little trouble. My comments for each photo below. But take the quiz first: bet you can tell the difference!
(Excerpt) Read more at grandrants.wordpress.com ...
The feeling is mutual, and I’ll be glad to compare my background and achievements with any MSM marshmallow anytime.
Obama is just like Hitler. Here’s proof.
1. [fill in name] has a nose.
2. [fill in name] wears shoes.
Yes, especially when they show a video or an image, they have to describe it to you in case you are seeing something differntly. . .
Of course they think we are idiots...
Thats why I can’t tell you who hosts what anymore on those networks...My life is so much simpler...
So I’m an idiot...
Most of the media are cocooned in NYC, DC and LA.
These know-it-alls from NYC,DC and LA think New Jersey is the Midwest, Loudoun County VA represents rural America and that anything east of San Bernardino is a wasteland.
Leftists have always had a condescending attitude toward those who disagree with them and regard them as backward, uneducated morons. It is another aspect of their unjustified hatred and anger toward others and also themselves.
All they want to do is fool 50.1% of the people at electon time. From what I have seen that is not hard to do.
You’re not an idiot for dropping the networks. You’re clearly smarter than they are, anyway!
The Media Really Do Think We’re Idiots
Shouldn’t this read.... The Media Really DOES Think We’re Idiots
Now if I could only block the major networks on my TV...
That would be great...
But I feel my wife would be one to threaten a Loraina Bobbitt on me if I did...Some of her favorite mind-numbing programs are on there, and she just HAS to be mind numbed for some reason...
Plus I cannot give up my football...
Thats about all we want to see...I wish it was less...But alas...
Shouldnt this read.... The Media Really DOES Think Were IdiotsThe Media Really Do Think Were Idiots
To the extent that you point out the unity of journalism, you are of course correct.
But of course the term "media" is actually a reference to the fact that TV, movies, and newspapers all tend liberal. But then, unless you think censorship of fiction is a valid concept under the First Amendment the criticism should be directed at nonfiction publishing, which includes TV news as well as newspapers, and therefore is still multimedia but should just be referred to as "journalism."
And even at that, it has to be said that the First Amendment gives no legitimate scope for legal action against journalism for selecting negative, sensational stories over more mundane truth. Where do you get off telling me that I have to talk about Paula Jones' charges and Clinton's having settled the case for substantial money, rather than just hyping the allegations against Herman Cain? Don't I have editorial control? I can't talk about everything, after all . . .
As long as "Half the truth can be a great lie," there is no way to enforce fairness and certainly no way to enforce objectivity. The only thing that is legitimate is competition. But then, journalism rejects the idea of legitimate competition against themselves. The engine which created the monopoly in journalism is the telegraph and the wire service. The Associated Press is the exemplar of the genre, and I like to use its name in criticism of wire services.
The problem (as you suggest) is that we have a free press but not free presses. The press is free to do its thing, but the press is not independent presses but an associated press. If you want to run a press (other than a local rag) you have to have a newswire to give you information from around the globe. And that costs dough, and requires that you sell that content to your audience in order to recoup your investment. But in selling the association's content, you have to sell the conceit of journalistic objectivity, and you thereby estop yourself from competing on the basis of accuracy. If "all journalists are objective" (what a fabulous conceit! How can they know that they are objective?), any competition on the basis of accuracy is illegitimate.
This is what excludes conservative journalism. The wire services unify all the newspapers (sure, there are various editorial page tendencies, but . . . ) and the net result is the self interest of journalism reified. Conservatism says,
OTOH journalists (and, not so coincidentally, the "liberal" politicians and labor unionists and other professions likely to be Democrat) are critics and not doers. They are able to convince many that criticism and second guessing is on a higher level than actually making decisions on a timely basis, before the consequences of those decisions have revealed themselves. But in practice what you get when you put a critic in charge is failure and scapegoating. And demands that they be judged on good intentions rather than on the bottom line. The all-too-familiar problem being that the journalist/liberal politician/unionist has the biggest megaphone around and does a great job of blaming opponents when things go wrong, or don't get done.
- From Theodore Roosevelt's 1910 speech at the Sarbonne:
- There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes to second achievement. A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life's realities - all these are marks, not as the possessor would fain to think, of superiority but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part painfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affection of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves in their own weakness. The rôle is easy; there is none easier, save only the rôle of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.